LarryTheAggie wrote:

trombone_ninja wrote:

troutputz wrote:This is just small recompense for the State Constitution not being followed.
Under the State f Utah Constitution, Utah and Utah State were always supposed to be in the same conference together!
That rule of Law was broken in 1962 when Utah departed for the WAC and left USU holding its own Rocky Mountain Oysters.
So I don't have a problem with 1.5 million going to help support recruits. Just wish my wife as a teacher could have gotten a raise.
She hasn't had a raise in 9 years here in Washington County! Her salary has actually dropped the last 3 years. 2 more yearsand we are out of the State of Utah

Don't get me started... They want to give raises to all the teachers who teach STEM, which is not only a MASSIVE slap in the face to everyone who teaches any other subject (including myself as a future music educator), but to add insult to injury, my wife, who has a degree in biology, is somehow left out of this because biology wasn't considered a part of STEM even though the S stands for science. What the heck?! I'm with you, trout. I don't want to be in Utah anymore

It is not a slap in the face at all, it is just economics. Basic supply and demand. Good teachers who teach stem could easily find higher paying jobs outside of education, so we have to pay them more to keep them around. Not saying that English and Arts teacher are not important (my high school band teacher taught me more about life than any of my other high school teachers combine). But there are fewer jobs outside of education for people who don't teach stem, so there is lower demand for those teachers, thus lower pay. The same reason that business professors often make 3 times more than other professors.

Exactly. Why is this so hard understand? Why would someone teach STEM if they could go out in the field and make way more money doing it? Have to pay them more to keep them teaching. Just like why teachers don't make more money. There's already a large supply of people willing to do what teachers do and get the necessary education to do it for that pay, it must be adequate.

While demand for teachers is high and they do a great thing for society, the supply is pretty strong for it as well.

Swish

You are flat out wrong about a high supply for them. First, most teachers quit within their first five years because they realize teachers don't get paid anything and the hours are extremely long. Second there has been a teacher shortage the past 5 years and this will continue to be a major problem for the future. Why? Because teachers don't get paid. And don't give me that crap that teachers have time off in the summer because in reality they do not.

bpd wrote:Swish

You are flat out wrong about a high supply for them. First, most teachers quit within their first five years because they realize teachers don't get paid anything and the hours are extremely long. Second there has been a teacher shortage the past 5 years and this will continue to be a major problem for the future. Why? Because teachers don't get paid. And don't give me that crap that teachers have time off in the summer because in reality they do not.

Please to explain the long hours and no time off in the summer.

I get that there is not three months, but there is time off.

FloridaAggie13 wrote:

YoungBloodAggie wrote:Not sure why Biology doesn't fall under the STEM banner, but I don't think it is a bad thing that we are putting more money into subjects that actually prepare students to have important careers that are currently undermanned. Not many firms are out there begging for history, art, or psych majors!

This then begs the question as to what is the true goal of education? Is it an enlightened mind that can reason and think critically, and is self-dependent, or is education meant to prepare students for "important" careers. Who decides what is important? The state? Or the individual?

I completely agree, Florida, but I can still see YoungBlood's point.

There aren't really a lot of undermanned, "important" careers involving musicians and artists. However, we should teach the arts as a core subject in schools because participation in the arts stimulates the brain and speeds up its development, allowing students to perform better in everything else. It also facilitates social and emotional development, as well as teaching them teamwork, creativity, problem-solving, leadership, responsibility, accountability, you name it. I can't think of any firm out there that wouldn't want these qualities in their employees.

My point in all this is that even though my music degree doesn't fall under STEM, as a music teacher I'll be doing a whole lot to prepare my students not only for these important careers that you speak of, but for whatever career they want. So I don't agree that it's a good thing to put more money into STEM subjects only. To be a music teacher and not be considered one of those subjects critical to preparing kids for their futures while only certain other teachers get pay raises is, again, a MASSIVE slap in the face

3 months, in reality is 2 months. During those two months, teachers take classes, some are required. They also start lesson planing for the next year. Now is this 5 days a week, 8 hours a day. No. But it is still work and actually a decent amount. During the school year I also work during 6 days a week.

I wish I got two months off during the year.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You did not read it very closely, did you? Teachers really don't get those months off. They take classes, paid for with their own money. I would like to get paid hourly. My wife, who is an RN and my brother, who is an engineer compared how many hours we work during the year. Guess who worked the most hours?

My random thoughts on the subject. I know some teachers that take most of the three months off. They have taught long enough that they don't lesson plan. They work a second job or vacation for most of the time. Still think that school administrators get paid way too much. Some of their pay should go to the teachers instead. If you look at other state of Utah employees they get paid much worse than teachers.

Has this thread derailed to the point of sandbox material yet?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

trombone_ninja wrote:

FloridaAggie13 wrote:

YoungBloodAggie wrote:Not sure why Biology doesn't fall under the STEM banner, but I don't think it is a bad thing that we are putting more money into subjects that actually prepare students to have important careers that are currently undermanned. Not many firms are out there begging for history, art, or psych majors!

This then begs the question as to what is the true goal of education? Is it an enlightened mind that can reason and think critically, and is self-dependent, or is education meant to prepare students for "important" careers. Who decides what is important? The state? Or the individual?

I completely agree, Florida, but I can still see YoungBlood's point.

There aren't really a lot of undermanned, "important" careers involving musicians and artists. However, we should teach the arts as a core subject in schools because participation in the arts stimulates the brain and speeds up its development, allowing students to perform better in everything else. It also facilitates social and emotional development, as well as teaching them teamwork, creativity, problem-solving, leadership, responsibility, accountability, you name it. I can't think of any firm out there that wouldn't want these qualities in their employees.

My point in all this is that even though my music degree doesn't fall under STEM, as a music teacher I'll be doing a whole lot to prepare my students not only for these important careers that you speak of, but for whatever career they want. So I don't agree that it's a good thing to put more money into STEM subjects only. To be a music teacher and not be considered one of those subjects critical to preparing kids for their futures while only certain other teachers get pay raises is, again, a MASSIVE slap in the face

It was setting a false paradigm of what is considered "important" that I disagreed with. Society and culture are shaped by philosophy, art/music just as much as it is by science and engineering.

ag4fr wrote:The reality is that whenever these topics come up, there are many arguments around the "exceptions". You have to focus on the preponderance of the evidence.

Do all sit around doing nothing all summer? Of course not, but many have the better part 2.5 months during the summer to do what they want. Family members of mine have held down near full time jobs working for the Forest Service or State during those summer months while being full time teachers and administrators during the school year. The demands must not be so excruciating that teachers are unable to do anything but focus on their teaching during the summer.

Are school teachers and admins underpaid? I would certainly say that in Utah a beginning teacher is not overpaid, but I see a number of gym teachers and driver's ed instructors that have been in the system for 20 - 25 years and drawing a pretty healthy salary for supervising 13 year olds playing dodge ball or warning kids of the perils of drinking and driving. Not all gym teachers and driver's ed instructors are making a load of money, but some are paid pretty handsomely. Look it up on the Right to Know sites sometime.

For many teachers, this is more of a life calling than a job they chose, but I assume they did so with their eyes and ears wide open. I'm just not buying that some of these teachers got 15 years into a teaching career, only to realize that they probably could have made more money in a private sector job in their field.

This is my reasoning behind better pay for STEM core subjects. College graduates in these areas do command higher salaries. It stands to reason that some pay differential would help attract more qualified candidates to the teaching side of that profession and help retain them.

And if "Biology" is not considered a Science subject, then I have no idea what they use as their criteria. That just seems stupid.

For me the utahs right website is not even close to my actual pay. They add in everything including health insurance and many do not participate in their works health insurance because their spouse receives better insurance. I make about 60% of what the site says I do.

Not all STEM teachers will receive this bonus. Only Science and Math. Engineering teachers do not receive this bonus.

NEWSFLASH: The Utah Right To Know Website figures are inflated because they include fringe benefits, which inflates actual money received. It shows me making something like $88K a year. In reality I actually bring home less than $50K once taxes, insurance and other items are deducted. But don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have a job at any price. But if you look at that site and want to know what people really make, focus on the "Regular Salaries and Wages" line with the per hour paid. There's your real money being paid to employees.

Troutputz, there is nothing in the Utah Constitution guaranteeing that Utah and Utah State will always be in the same conference or play each other in sports. Just thought I would point that out. There have been several attempts to link them together like that, but the Wasatch Front, nee Salt Lake City legislators always fight that effort, believing that somehow it cheapens the University of Utah to have to cavort with their lessor brethren from the north. And now you know why we have so many issues with our state legislature, when you have these kinds of attitudes.

As for the discussion of teachers and salaries, I come down squarely on the side of elementary and secondary ed teachers. They do need to be paid more. But, unfortunately, because teaching is not valued the same way that business and manufacturing jobs are, it is hopeless of them to believe they should be paid equally with those careers. It will never happen in this state or most others. Why? Because Doctors, Lawyers, CPA's and businessmen make up the preponderence of those serving in the legislature, and they're the ones who decide who get's paid. Not saying I agree with that, it's just how it works.

I worked at USU for 10 years and saw a lot of administrative waste and, yes, even a little fraud perpetrated. Fortunately, the fraudulent are nearly always found out and fired or "resigned." Unfortunately, the ways that university's are administered and operated provides a fertile ground for those looking to game the system. In USU's defense, it has always squeezed more out of a dollar than other similar universities because it has to. If these same doctors, lawyers, CPA's and businessmen who populate the legislature would look at the actually economic activity spawned by the research at USU, they would have to treat USU with more respect. But since most of them are only focused on Salt Lake City this, too, is probably never going to happen, either.

AggiesForever wrote:NEWSFLASH: The Utah Right To Know Website figures are inflated because they include fringe benefits, which inflates actual money received. It shows me making something like $88K a year. In reality I actually bring home less than $50K once taxes, insurance and other items are deducted. But don't get me wrong, I'm glad to have a job at any price. But if you look at that site and want to know what people really make, focus on the "Regular Salaries and Wages" line with the per hour paid. There's your real money being paid to employees.

Troutputz, there is nothing in the Utah Constitution guaranteeing that Utah and Utah State will always be in the same conference or play each other in sports. Just thought I would point that out. There have been several attempts to link them together like that, but the Wasatch Front, nee Salt Lake City legislators always fight that effort, believing that somehow it cheapens the University of Utah to have to cavort with their lessor brethren from the north. And now you know why we have so many issues with our state legislature, when you have these kinds of attitudes.

As for the discussion of teachers and salaries, I come down squarely on the side of elementary and secondary ed teachers. They do need to be paid more. But, unfortunately, because teaching is not valued the same way that business and manufacturing jobs are, it is hopeless of them to believe they should be paid equally with those careers. It will never happen in this state or most others. Why? Because Doctors, Lawyers, CPA's and businessmen make up the preponderence of those serving in the legislature, and they're the ones who decide who get's paid. Not saying I agree with that, it's just how it works.

I worked at USU for 10 years and saw a lot of administrative waste and, yes, even a little fraud perpetrated. Fortunately, the fraudulent are nearly always found out and fired or "resigned." Unfortunately, the ways that university's are administered and operated provides a fertile ground for those looking to game the system. In USU's defense, it has always squeezed more out of a dollar than other similar universities because it has to. If these same doctors, lawyers, CPA's and businessmen who populate the legislature would look at the actually economic activity spawned by the research at USU, they would have to treat USU with more respect. But since most of them are only focused on Salt Lake City this, too, is probably never going to happen, either.

I've seen this argument used quite a bit but isn't that basically how everyone states their salary in any job field? If I were to be asked what my salary was, I would say 90k (just an example, this is not what I make) instead of "well after taxes and health benefits are taken out I make around 78k.

Maybe it also reflects the taxes and health care coverage paid for by the employer. I know some businesses will tack that on to your salary to show you what it's actually having to pay to keep you employed.

I think of my salary as just that, salary. I personally don't take into account the other fringe benefits such as health insurance, 401k match, etc.

tbadge wrote:Maybe it also reflects the taxes and health care coverage paid for by the employer. I know some businesses will tack that on to your salary to show you what it's actually having to pay to keep you employed.

I think of my salary as just that, salary. I personally don't take into account the other fringe benefits such as health insurance, 401k match, etc.

Different entities report it differently. In general however, it counts employer contribution for insurance. Vacation and sick leave. pension, employer contribution to 401k, and some other things I can't think of right now.

ag4fr wrote:Hmmmm....

Don't all employees have to pay taxes, insurance, disability, etc.?

My salary is the gross amount I am payed. After taxes, and all the other deductions are taken out, I can tell you that my take home is a LOT less than my salary, but I don't suddenly claim to make 1/2 of my salary.

Do teachers or any other public employees think they are any different than anyone else in this regard?

Trust me, as a public employee and as a UEA union employee, teachers are getting better benefits than most in the private sector. Time off, Insurance, Retirement, etc., Compare them all, I am willing to bet most private sector employees get less benefit and pay more for those benefits than their public sector counterparts and most would trade what they get for what teachers get, any day of the week.

But salary is salary. About that, there really is no argument. It's the gross amount you are paid before taxes and deductions. The government takes a bite from everybody. Get over it.

Unless you opt out of your insurance because $500 is too much to take out of every paycheck, but your info on Utah's right still shows that you receive that money and the additional amount it would cost for health insurance if you did not opt out. That is my point! I am just stating the facts of my situation.

Back to the topic, did any one read the op-ed in the Deseret News? Quite scathing.

ratofallaggies wrote:I've seen this argument used quite a bit but isn't that basically how everyone states their salary in any job field? If I were to be asked what my salary was, I would say 90k (just an example, this is not what I make) instead of "well after taxes and health benefits are taken out I make around 78k.

I'm likely on the high end because I take advantage of many fringe benefits and don't pull in a high salary. If you take 56% of my utahsright total, that equals my W2 wages. If you add back tax deductible items which don't show up on my W2 (401k contributions and heath insurance) that is still equal to 60% of the utahsright total.

The items included in my benefits include the employer portion of healthcare ($15,000), both the employee and employer portion of payroll taxes, UTA Services, Workers Compensation Insurance, Unemployment Insurance, and my portion of pension funding (which for me was 23% of salary because URS is underfunded and agencies are making up the shortage with higher contributions).

USU_NoKaOi wrote:Back to the topic, did any one read the op-ed in the Deseret News? Quite scathing.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... slope.html

NAggsty Butler wrote:

USU_NoKaOi wrote:Back to the topic, did any one read the op-ed in the Deseret News? Quite scathing.

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... slope.html

Interesting they didn't bother to do any research and see how much the U of U's athletics program gets from the state every year. As expected, the Deseret News has failed to provide good reporting again. Nobody knows about the U of U's $2,000,000 windfall to run their building because it was passed before the days of social media.

As a side note, this is the first article I've read from the Deserted News in well over a year.

NAggsty Butler wrote:http://www.deseretnews.com/article/8656 ... slope.html

signed, BYU

I emailed their editor asking why they didn't bother to mention the U of U's public funding as well. I don't expect any type of response. That paper is a joke.

ag4fr wrote:

stewusu98 wrote:

ag4fr wrote:Hmmmm....

Don't all employees have to pay taxes, insurance, disability, etc.?

My salary is the gross amount I am payed. After taxes, and all the other deductions are taken out, I can tell you that my take home is a LOT less than my salary, but I don't suddenly claim to make 1/2 of my salary.

Do teachers or any other public employees think they are any different than anyone else in this regard?

Trust me, as a public employee and as a UEA union employee, teachers are getting better benefits than most in the private sector. Time off, Insurance, Retirement, etc., Compare them all, I am willing to bet most private sector employees get less benefit and pay more for those benefits than their public sector counterparts and most would trade what they get for what teachers get, any day of the week.

But salary is salary. About that, there really is no argument. It's the gross amount you are paid before taxes and deductions. The government takes a bite from everybody. Get over it.

Unless you opt out of your insurance because $500 is too much to take out of every paycheck, but your info on Utah's right still shows that you receive that money and the additional amount it would cost for health insurance if you did not opt out. That is my point! I am just stating the facts of my situation.

There are many private sector companies where the bi-weekly insurance premium for a Family is going to be in the $400 range.

$500 is likely on the high side, but I bet the insurance program for teachers is much better than what most other private sector insurance plans are providing, as well.

Still not the point I was making. I am just saying they put down the amount they pay for my health insurance on Utah's right. I do not receive health insurance because my wives health insurance is better and cheaper. What it says on Utah's right in not correct because they have added the amount it would cost them for health insurance that they do not provide! I love my Job! wish I made more, but who does not. I never complained about what I do for a living, just that the information they posted online about my wages is incorrect.

I think there is a general amount of talking past each other regarding the salary discussion. Let me give a concrete actual example. Since I'm on the Utah's Right website I'll just give you the real numbers - since any of you could look me up if you cared to anyway.

I currently make $38.48 an hour in wages and/or salary. That computes to: $80,038.40 a year (for a 52 week year anyway).

That's my gross pay - that's what gets reported to the IRS, etc. Yet the website lists my "Total Compensation" as being: $124,202. That is not what I make under any conventional measure (gross, net, or otherwise). The difference is $44,163.60 - about 55% of my salary. I wish I got paid that much, but I don't.

Just a data point for clarity.

JSHarvey wrote:I think there is a general amount of talking past each other regarding the salary discussion. Let me give a concrete actual example. Since I'm on the Utah's Right website I'll just give you the real numbers - since any of you could look me up if you cared to anyway.

I currently make $38.48 an hour in wages and/or salary. That computes to: $80,038.40 a year (for a 52 week year anyway).

That's my gross pay - that's what gets reported to the IRS, etc. Yet the website lists my "Total Compensation" as being: $124,202. That is not what I make under any conventional measure (gross, net, or otherwise). The difference is $44,163.60 - about 55% of my salary. I wish I got paid that much, but I don't.

Just a data point for clarity.

Wow I must be horrible at getting my point across. What they state as my "Total Compensation" is not accurate because they state the cost of health insurance that I do not receive. That was all my point was.

Back to the OP. Where is the "Utah is getting $2 million" stuff coming from? Does anybody have a link to that stuff?

Tr0ll wrote:http://www.sbnation.com/college-footbal ... utah-state

Authored by Matt Brown, whose twitter profile says he tweets BYU stuff too.......

3rdGenAggie wrote:Back to the OP. Where is the "Utah is getting $2 million" stuff coming from? Does anybody have a link to that stuff?

In this link, Senator Hillyard mentions the $2 million in the last paragraph. This number does not appear in the recent financial statements that I have found for Utah athletics. I wonder if it isn't considered necessary to include it as it is indirect funding. Interesting to have $2 million a year to maintain a building that only cost $6 million to build about 10 years ago.

http://www.sltrib.com/news/2279640-155/ ... -in-public

I emailed Lya about this inconsistency when a report came out a few weeks ago about the 1.5 mill being the first time in memory that the state has helped fund athletics for a University. She passed the buck to her editor and that is the last I heard.

When anybody complains to me about the funding, I ask why they care when the U gets 2 million a year to mow the artificial turf in their indoor facility and the conversation usually ends or changes subjects pretty quickly.