Well said, Derek. Due to salary cuts at my last company, I effectively gave up 30 days' pay, received a 0% raise at year end, and also paid more for my health benefits when open enrollment time came around. And you are absolutely right - it is those of us, who have suffered financial hardship in terms of rising costs and declining pay, who are being asked to give more to the private sector, and most of us simply do not have it.

Oh Derek, Derek, Derek....Kim, Kim, Kim......You miss the point entirely. Lisa's speech wasn't offensive at all in the way you describe. You must take the comments IN CONTEXT. The ONLY reason those cases were brought up in that speech was to point out to those who call teachers greedy that it's not the case at all. If you're going to say, "We aren't greedy," it behooves you to give examples to back up your statementas fact, not merely the opinion of those stating it. Otherwise, how can anyone who doesn't know the way teachers in Framingham give back to the community accept it as fact? If you MUST comment so negatively, read again and use the context upon which to base your OPINION.
Also......the town is doing better this year as is evidenced by the amount of money awarded to the school budget. So though your businesses may be having a "terrible year economically," the school committee says otherwise about its budget this year. When things WERE terrible, we made our concessions in good faith. THAT'S what Lisa was talking about. Please, do your homework before you bash teachers.

KKM - I'm assuming (perhaps incorrectly) that you are a teacher in Framingham? I sincerely hope you don't take that sarcastic and condescending tone when dealing with the children in this town. My experience years ago at the high school would indicate that that behavior is the norm, but I had hoped my experience was an isolated incident. Perhaps not?

Although Derek seems quite capable of defending himself and his opinions, it seems that he was voicing his opinion in quite an articulate fashion, which he (and I) have every right to do. He neither took a condescending tone, nor did he "bash" anyone. I am also going to guess that your degree is not in business, otherwise you may not have made the statement “ . . . as evidenced by the amount of money awarded to the school budget.”

Lastly, I am a town meeting member, and trust me, I did my homework about the school budget, year over year student enrollment, comparative analysis of average teacher salaries in neighboring towns, and on and on. The budget was voted on quite late at night after nearly a month of meetings, with perhaps an hour of debate (we debated longer than that on issues of much less dollar value and significance). Perhaps you should do some more homework as well, rather than lashing out based on defense of your profession. I don’t usually post in this tone, but quite frankly, I’m a little offended by yours.

Three points--

1. In the past year, employment costs for public sector jobs have gone up less (1.5%) than they have in the private sector (2.1%) on a national basis. This figure includes wages and benefits, BTW. http://www.bls.gov/news.release/eci.nr0.htm

2. An important point that the speaker (letter) didn't mention is that the lowest paid teachers in the district will be getting a 7.5% raise this year in the absence of any collective bargaining agreements. They will get a 2.5 percent from the steps that were deferred last year, and then a 5% step increase on top of that.

3. Lots of people work really hard with little in the way of thanks. That's called life. Teachers get appreciation brunches and gifts etc all the time. That is more than most working people get.

KKM if the writer had stopped at the list of concessions that would have been one thing - but to list the 'good deeds' - I'm sorry its bragging and in poor taste especially since it is being used in the argument. And let's call it for what it really is - it is not about respect it is about getting a raise - let's not sugar coat it.

Linda makes a very good point of the other types of raises that the teachers don't bring up. In the real world where the rest of us live - any increase in pay is a raise - you can call it whatever you want but its simple math - if you got more than the year before you got a raise. But for some reason this type of math doesn't apply to teachers. A teacher gets a step raise but no COLA and somehow still has the audacity to claim they didn't get a raise. Sorry - but yes you did - your pay went up!

If the School has some extra money - maybe we should bring back one of those programs that we hear gets decimated to the detriment of the children. Or are you only in favor of that after you get your raise?

KKM I can sympathize for your situation - you say you have effectively taken a pay cut with a 0% raise and a raise in health benefits. Well Kim just gives you her situation where she took around a 10% pay cut and pays more for her benefits meaning even a bigger pay cut. And I can assure you there are many more in her same boat. So why is it fair to ask those that have taken a much bigger pay cut than you for more of their money at a time when they need it most? Where is the respect for them?

Maybe Linda or someone else can give us the real facts - how many teachers this year are already guaranteed some type of raise under other agreements?

@Derek--I already recycled my paperwork, but the number of teachers getting some sort of increase is roughly half. These are the typically younger teachers on the bottom end of the pay scale, the ones with the big student loan payments. Some of the raises are associated with reaching educational milestones, which I would consider a merit increase of sorts (in union language they are called lane changes).

I'd prefer to see teachers rewarded for being National Board Certified or for certifications in areas like special education, ESL, math and literacy, before talking about COLAs. That would boost the salaries of many of the best experienced teachers and provide an avenue for increasing pay to the rest. It would be similar to many recent changes in municipal contracts: building in rewards for people who add value to services by bringing something extra to their job.

When is 0>0? Here are two examples:

The 2-day furlough in 2010-11 school year amounted to a 1% reduction in salary. However, the contract that was in force had a 3% COLA. *So, teachers actually received a net 2% increase over the prior school year, even with the furlough.*

Further, while there was no change in the salary schedule in 2011-2012 School year, there was actually, a 1% increase in the amount everyone actually received, over and above steps and lanes. *In other words, this year every teacher in the district received at least 1% more this year than they did the year before, and those who received steps typically received another 2.5% more.*

Ray - when we in the public sector do not get raises year after year, when we in the public sector have to spend more of our paychecks to purchase our health insurance and pay for the deductibles, when we in the public sector have to pay rising costs of living with less money, that means we have less money to pay teachers. Very simple. It's not "things are bad for me, so I'm going to make sure they're bad for you too." It's more accurately, "things are bad for me, so I cannot afford to give you more."

What if good teachers can't afford to live on the money we claim to be able to pay them? There are two flavors of armageddon. One is bankruptcy due to overspending, the other is bankruptcy due to lack of services. This gets back to the horse story.

Ray - you are absolutely correct - I meant "we in the private sector". Oops!

I'd argue that a *community's* collective ability to pay is based on the personal income of its inhabitants. Likewise, all of the raises in a town budget need to be considered, not just one slice. So neither the circumstance of an individual teacher or individual taxpayer is relevant. They are both comparable anecdotal. A bigger picture look is required in both instances.

Can I like that comment? ;-)