Marie Corfield on Fox and Friends

Really... (3.00 / 1)

so her point was if the millionaires tax went through, and the seniors got their rebates, then the teachers would have taken the pay freeze?


"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 15:40:33 PM UTC

Did you miss the part where she said (4.00 / 2)

that even if they took a pay freeze, then many districts would (and did) appropriate the money saved and still fire workers? She's basically defending the idea of real "shared sacrifice," and trying to guarantee that teachers won't be the only ones to get screwed.

---

by: Kosh Naranek @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 17:46:10 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

I certainly did not... (0.00 / 0)

I took that as her believing that circumstances do not exist under which teachers should be expected to take a pay freeze.

I took that as she believes it's unfair for teachers to take a pay freeze to save say, a fireman's or policeman's job.

She had a valid point with the villification of teachers under the governor. But she really loses me and others I'm sure with interviews like this.

She should have been asked, under what circumstances to do you think a wage freeze for teachers is reasonable. I would have loved to hear that answer, because that interview says to me, they do not exist.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 19:39:05 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

How did you take that as her (0.00 / 0)

believing that circumstances do not exist under which teachers should be expected to take a pay freeze, especially since she said she would if the governor did not give the rich a tax break and that districts wouldn't fire teachers after a pay freeze. If you think that both preconditions aren't possible, those are contentions you would need to defend, not ones that are self-evidently true and implied by Ms. Corfield (i.e., she's not saying she would take a pay freeze only if those preconditions were in effect and, since they're impossible anyway, it wouldn't matter, so, ultimately, she wouldn't take a pay freeze).

Also, why would you assume she believes it's unfair for teachers to take a pay freeze to save say, a fireman's or policeman's job. Firemen or policemen weren't mentioned at all. If taking a freeze would save someone's job, it would be a teacher's job in this context. This interview was about teachers, not public workers in general.

---

by: Kosh Naranek @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 20:18:27 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She said... (0.00 / 0)

#1. Taking a pay freeze would not prevent all teacher layoffs.

True, but it would prevent some of them, in most cases. If I follow her logic, then it's senseless to tax millionaires because even after I tax them, workers will STILL be layed off, so why tax them at all?

#2. There was no guarantee that savings generated from a pay freeze would be used to save teaching jobs.

I never heard of the union making the offer, "We'll accept the freeze if you guarantee the money stays in education." But having said that, she's saying, if they had guaranteed the money would have be spent on layoff reduction, they would have agreed? Again no, the union's position was that even if they had agreed to the freeze, that savings amount was not nearly what was cut, so layoffs were inevitable, and in that case, why should they agree to a freeze. Basically, if we can't save all the teaching jobs, let's not save any and keep our raises. That doesn't seem unreasonable to you?

Finally, if you really believe that had the millionaires been taxed, and those senior rebate checks went out, then, in that case, the teachers would have taken a freeze, I've got a bridge to sell you. One has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the other.

Finally, if I'm not mistaken, I believe in Flemington (her district), there was a freeze accepted by the administrators, presumably to save teaching jobs.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 21:02:11 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

PS. Teachers... (0.00 / 0)

were not the only ones to get screwed. Talk to the police force in Newark, talk to the women's health care advocates, there was plenty of screwing to go around.

The millionaire's tax would have only help seniors. (and senior property owners, at that)

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 19:41:44 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Again, (0.00 / 0)

obviously teachers weren't the only ones to get screwed. But that's irrelevant. This interview was about teachers only. Ms. Corfield wasn't there to represent the entire public sector, just the one she's involved with.

---

by: Kosh Naranek @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 20:22:35 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

You said... (0.00 / 0)

she was trying to guarantee that teachers were not the only ones to get screwed.

I just pointed out there's no need to guarantee that.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 21:03:56 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Christie (3.00 / 1)

 Christie is a tough guy when talking to woman teachers, or guys who he outweighs by 50lbs when the state troopers are behind him. He is a bully.

---

by: RustyBuckets @ Sat Jan 08, 2011 at 18:11:29 PM UTC

Amazing (0.00 / 0)

It's amazing that F&F showed some respect and let her talk. I was expecting far worse.

A couple of tidbits: one is that there was a law proposed that would have enabled a BoE to agree to save jobs in return for concessions like a pay freeze, though I'm not sure if it passed. What she said is true: a BoE can take savings from a pay freeze and do what it likes with the money, and even it if wanted to, it cannot legally promise to save jobs. The proposed law was an attempt to plug that oddity.

Also, CC had the chance to allow 401(k) type retirement for public employees, but vetoed it last year (probably because only the employees are paying into the pensions, so if you stopped that, they'd belly-up on his watch). The state is legally obligated, as the employer and party to contracts, to contribute to pensions, but has failed to do so most of the last dozen-plus years. In the vein of corporate personhood, no one's gonna go to jail for violating the law/agreement.

Finally, there's a lot of anger over the "average teacher" making $66K/yr. The average teacher is at least part-way toward a master's degree and has nearly a decade of experience, as I recall. Most people with those qualifications in the private sector are making north of $66K, I'd venture to say. And they probably don't have to provide their own office supplies, buy tissues for their departments, or have to wait for a bell to ring so they can use a decrepit bathroom, all while getting abused.

---

by: biomis @ Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:08:32 AM UTC

I think... (0.00 / 0)

You are mistaken. There was no proposal passed to move public employees to 401k's, and Christie certainly didn't veto it.

"Where ever you go, there you are." - Buckaroo Bonzai

---

by: William Weber (WjcW) @ Sun Jan 09, 2011 at 02:54:03 AM UTC

[ Parent ]