Comments about ‘Measure targets teacher-association salaries’

There is nothing more important to our society than making sure that our children are taught the old fashioned values that made this Country great. Yet, this group has declared war on our teachers. Unfortunately, this desire for revenge displayed by this group is a symptom of modern society's abandonment of traditional values.

I'm shocked to learn that the school districts are PAYING the salaries of union employees. TALK ABOUT THE FOX GUARDING THE HEN HOUSE.

The UEA being a private group, it should pay its representatives, if they choos to pay them, out of their own funds and not the school budgets. The UEA and its unions reps has no right to this money, thats the issue, not some made up revenge accusations. If that's there best argument then its time to cut them off. The UEA does not represent students, parents, or the rest of the citizens so they have no need to be taking childrens books off the desks. The UEA is a teachers union, which many teachers consider a waste and not memebers of, so they should not be receiveing any education funds.

Why are tax payers subsidizing unions. When we are having trouble finding enough money to fund education and state government, paying union salaries makes absolutly no sense.

The existence of a representative group that gives a voice to teachers' needs, opinions, and concerns helps districts work more smoothly.

Districts run more smoothly when there is a group that represents the questions, concerns, and opinions of teachers.

It sounds to me like a few teachers who arent working full time teaching (release time) spend that time working for the Union they belong to. Isnt that their choice? The teacher that I know who works for UEA spends her release time mentoring other teachers. We cant have that now can we. That might just make for more successful teachers. Again, its not whats best for children, but what drives one agenda or another.

Taxpayer money used to pay union leader's salaries? Why can't we use the education dollars to help children, lower classroom size and give teachers who teach better salaries? It is outrageous to think dollars are siphoned off for union salaries - when are we really going to care about the children?

Here we go, the old game the teachers unions have played for so long which is why they have so much ill-gotten clout. Teachers unions do not represent the interest of children, quit claiming that they do! The union's job is to protect the employment status of its members, it has nothing to do with the well-being of students. Quite to the contrary, unions prove their worth by demonstrating that they are able to protect the weakest link - the worst teachers. That is their primary function, protect teachers from any form of accountability no matter how inept, abusive, or criminal their actions may be.
Terry Moe, chair of the Political Science department at Stanford University (perhaps you've heard of it?) has demonstrated conclusively the damaging effects of teacher's unions on the quality of education in this country. Not a single cent should be used to subsidize union reps, they are parasite on the public good.

As a final note I would just blunt these arguments before I hear them - I am NOT saying that all teachers are inept, lazy etc. Most teachers are great. But unions protect at any cost the worst teachers.

If by "move more smoothly" you mean, tow the line as to what teachers unions want, then you are quite correct.
Effectively you are subsidizing one voice in the process and thereby handicapping the other participants in the process. What about parents, should the PTO/PTA president be paid release time by the district? What about students, should the student body president be paid for her/his time? How about, heaven forbid, the taxpayer? You see, the logic falls apart. Teachers unions represent only the views of teachers, if you subsidize them, you had better pay representatives of all the other participants as well.
The arrogance on display here is simply astounding.

Does Ms. Clark mean to divert money away from our classrooms like putting it in vouchers to send kids other places.

This bill does not go far enough. It should require that all school district administrations cut thier budgets by 50% and divert those dollars to TEACHERS pay. This is the greatest drain on why we can't pay teachers what they deserve. There is more than enough money allocateed for education it is simply going to the WRONG place. This together with eliminating the unions will allow our children to become educated.

As a veteran non-UEA teacher in Utah, I had NO IDEA the district paid for salaries of the people serving in UEA.

That is a HUGE mistake.

I'm glad to see this bill and hope it passes.

That being said,

VOUCHERS WERE AND STILL ARE A JOKE. AS IS THE PCE ORGANIZATION.

The people of Utah just want solid local schools with well paid teachers that will stick around more than 3-5 years.

It really isn't that hard and the legislature doesn't have to make it such a big fight EVER STINKING YEAR!!!

Actually these are district employees that the unions are subsidizing.

I can't believe that tax dollars go to pay union workers. It should SWTOP AND STOP NOW! I work for a private company and we have a union and person who I workl with does not get any of his pay from the company. IT MUST STOP. It is not fair and not right. I'm glad this has come to light. Put the money back in the class room. Let the UNION pay the cost they pay dues to them.

A few years ago, Chad Bennion, former Utah Legislator for District 44 (Murray/Midvale), was targeted by the UEA and defeated for sponsoring legislation hitting the UEA in the pocketbook. I only hope Chris Herrod's constituents will be more supportive of him.

John Charity Spring - I couldn't tell which side you were taking. If the union is requiring districts subsidize union officials' salaries, they are the ones taking money away from the education of our children. So I assume it was the unions you were attacking? but then that comment about revenge didn't work, so maybe you were attacking the supporters of the bill?

Why not just give all the money that would be spent on the kid directly to the kid instead? Let the family hire a tutor or something. This whole public school idea was great for awhile, but it is so against Republican ideas it needs to be stopped.

Regardless of where you stand on this issue, it is NOT up to the legislature to micromanage it. It is up to each local union and district during contract negotiations to decide whether or not to divide the salary, and whether or not there are good reasons to do so in some cases. Not all districts pay these salaries, and those who do usually only pay a portion of it because duties are split between district and union responsibilities. I'm not saying that this isn't an issue worth discussion, but these types of micromanaging measures are such a waste of valuable time during each legislative session, and usually have unintended negative consequences if passed. Can't Herrod come up with any better bills to sponsor?

If the district officials get off with just a legislative bill that prohibits them from using taxpayer funds to subsidize the pay of non-employees they will be very, very lucky.

Those who have been authorizing any unlawful appropriations of money, such as giving it away, even for a "good" reason, can be held personally liable to repay the funds to the government, are subject to criminal felony charges for misappropriation of public funds, remember Nancy Workman, and can be removed from public office with a ban from ever holding public office again.

Any citizen can file a complaint with the county attorney to remove a public official from office for misappropriating government funds.

This could get very interesting.