News Wisconsin labor protests it's like Cairo has moved to Madison these days

[WhoWee]

This is a link to the Wisconsin Dept of Employee Trust Funds (etf)

http://etf.wi.gov/news/ht_20110211a.htm

From the site
"Department of Employee Trust Funds

Updated on February 17, 2011


State Budget Bill
The Department of Employee Trust Funds (ETF) has received numerous inquiries about the state 2009-2011 Budget Repair Bill (2011 Special Session Senate Bill 11) and the impact of the bill on the public employee benefit programs administered by ETF. "


http://legis.wisconsin.gov/JR1SB-11.pdf

 

[Amp1]

Well to throw in me 2 cents, the National Labor Relations Act (1935) - Also called the Wagner Act; gave employees the right to collectively bargain with employers through elected union representatives. Although I don't know the specifics in this case, I do know the US is moving away from industrial/manufacturing towards more service oriented employment. This in turn is one of the reasons unions are declining. Also, it may be unconstitutional to strike out collective bargaining for unionized employees via State authority.

Wagner Act:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Labor_Relations_Act

 

[nismaratwork]

The circus has just begun!



http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116470423.html

No... The circus NEVER ENDS, it just changes rings back and forth.

Russ: You struggled through an engineering degree, instead of partying... Well, it's good to know that the world is binary. It seems fortunate that at some point somebody took a different view, unless your knowledge is "parthenogenetic".

I'd add... $258 million USD over 10 years... and? How does the existence of beaureapathologies in government (shocker) in any way support the argument to dissolve unions and double pension contributions?

As for job security... it would seem that comes as a result of... collective bargaining. That is unless what you're seeing now counts as job security, in which case I envy your sense of fun and a lack of care for the future.

 

[ParticleGrl]

It's a loophole that allows them to get paid more than if they hadn't taken advantage of the program and the taxpayers pay for it. No, that's exactly the point: those who take advantage of the program probably would not have retired if this program wasn't available to them.

It might actually save money, its not so clear. In the district where I used to substitute, a retired teacher drawing on a pension who returns to work is not elegible for benefits. Does the extra money they make off the pension offset the cost the state no longer has to pay in benefits? It probably depends on the situation.

Regardless, in some places like for generic city workers (including councilmembers) in Philly, it costs the city hundreds of millions of dollars in extra pay ($258 million over 10 years):
http://articles.philly.com/2010-08-05/news/24973521_1_pension-costs-pension-plan-city-paper

I'm not sure what the DROP program actually is- it appears to be some additional measure on top of normal pensions?

Because I didn't struggle my way through an engineering degree instead of partying my way through a communications degree just to become a teacher!

There you have it- teaching is a low prestige occupation, that isn't particularly well compensated. And its hard- hard enough that the attrition rate is insane. Something like 50% quit within 5 years. Most don't seem to want the job, but somehow feel that the average teacher is a greedy lack-wit suckling at the government's teat.

The fact is, the unions were granted contracts from the state. Its possible the state cannot honor its end due to the recession- so the answer is to renegotiate.

 

[CAC1001]

I have heard some say they are trying to make Wisconsin a Right-to-Work state with this, but then folks are saying they are trying to end the ability of the union to do collective bargaiing...? Wouldn't the two be different? Because unions can exist in Right-to-Work states, its just an employee is not mandated to have to join the union (I think).

 

[Janus]

No. That's only true if you don't include the pension! It's a loophole that allows them to get paid more than if they hadn't taken advantage of the program and the taxpayers pay for it.

The pension is paid from money the employee contributed to the pension fund, money the employer paid in and any interest the money earned while in the fund. So this is money already owed. It will be paid to the employee whether he retires now or ten years from now. So the taxpayer is not out any extra money.

At least here,( I can't speak for other public pension programs) it works like this:
The employee is given the choice of taking his pension as one lump sum or getting a monthly pension.

The monthly pension generally is figured from how much money the employee has in his fund and how long he is expected to live. The earlier he retires, the smaller his monthly pension. It is gauged so that the money should last out the rest of his natural life. The only way it costs the taxpayer more than the money already in his fund is if he lives longer than average life expectancy. But there are going to be those that fail to live their full expectancy, so the money not paid to them offsets this. So in essence, it is already the employee's money.
Besides, that, if the employee retires he will be paid his pension whether he continues to work or not. As long as the position he continues to work in would have been filled anyway at an equal amount of pay, The taxpayer isn't out any extra money.

No, that's exactly the point: those who take advantage of the program probably would not have retired if this program wasn't available to them. This is a way to game the system for extra money paid for by the taxpayers.

Again, At least in the case in my state's public pension, this doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more than he would have paid otherwise.

Agreed. So they'd be paid less and pay-in to the pension more for the same work, right?

No, since they paid in more, their pension account would be larger, and since by their calculated life expectancy, they would live fewer years after retiring, Their monthly pension would increase accordingly.
In fact, since the employer would have to contribute to the pension fund while the employee continued to work without retiring, it would cost the taxpayer more for him to work till 65 and then retire than for him to retire at 55, and work post retirement at the same salary, assuming he lives out his expected lifespan.

 

[WhoWee]

The pension is paid from money the employee contributed to the pension fund, money the employer paid in and any interest the money earned while in the fund. So this is money already owed. It will be paid to the employee whether he retires now or ten years from now. So the taxpayer is not out any extra money.

At least here,( I can't speak for other public pension programs) it works like this:
The employee is given the choice of taking his pension as one lump sum or getting a monthly pension.

The monthly pension generally is figured from how much money the employee has in his fund and how long he is expected to live. The earlier he retires, the smaller his monthly pension. It is gauged so that the money should last out the rest of his natural life. The only way it costs the taxpayer more than the money already in his fund is if he lives longer than average life expectancy. But there are going to be those that fail to live their full expectancy, so the money not paid to them offsets this. So in essence, it is already the employee's money.
Besides, that, if the employee retires he will be paid his pension whether he continues to work or not. As long as the position he continues to work in would have been filled anyway at an equal amount of pay, The taxpayer isn't out any extra money.
Again, At least in the case in my state's public pension, this doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more than he would have paid otherwise. No, since they paid in more, their pension account would be larger, and since by their calculated life expectancy, they would live fewer years after retiring, Their monthly pension would increase accordingly.
In fact, since the employer would have to contribute to the pension fund while the employee continued to work without retiring, it would cost the taxpayer more for him to work till 65 and then retire than for him to retire at 55, and work post retirement at the same salary, assuming he lives out his expected lifespan.

Apparently, they've known for almost a year that pensions needed to be addressed. I don't think the 5.5% the Governor wants them to contribute is unreasonable - as you said - it's their money.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/education/90768644.html

"Wisconsin pension funding for teachers falls $10.9 billion short, report says
e-mail print By Amy Hetzner of the Journal Sentinel
April 13, 2010"

 

[ParticleGrl]

Apparently, they've known for almost a year that pensions needed to be addressed. I don't think the 5.5% the Governor wants them to contribute is unreasonable - as you said - it's their money.

Then he should approach it reasonably- renegotiate the contract. Hamstringing the collective bargaining rights is ridiculous.

 

[Containment]

Meh so how long will they be willing to protest for? Why couldn't this type of thing happen when I was in school :/ A good couple weeks off of school a chance to cause a riot and tons of girls all in one place what more could a teen ask for?

Actually I bet births especially in teen aged girls are way up 9 months from now in that town.

 

[FrancisZ]

Your data does not match your conclusion. The lowest amount I see is $21,500 - at least 8 years ago (perhaps longer?). Also, did changing states have something to do with the pay raise (NJ to NY)? Last, just out of curiosity - why is she now subbing at $75 per day? Did she retire - now engaged in "double-dipping"?

Yes. That was my salary 8 years ago; for 10 months of work. We were not provided the alternative of dividing the same compensation over 12 months instead (there was no union in that Diocese). So I was basically laid off for two months, and had no choice but to look for another job in the mean time, to get through the summer. It was frequently difficult.

The salary increase I experienced WAS as a consequence, yes, of joining an available union elsewhere. Where I had previously worked, there simply none. NY and NJ Catholic schools that ARE unionized though, DO have compatible pay scales and medical coverage.

I am subbing at $75/day again, because my last full time teaching position ended last May, after the lady I had been subbing full time for (that entire year almost) returned after milking the system. I am presently having difficulty finding full time work.

Prior to that job, I had moved from NJ to NY looking for employment. However, since they have different requirements for teaching employment/certification--and DO NOT accept licensing or certification from even a neighboring state--I have literally had to start from scratch.

The double dipping is also a major problem in our area - with teachers. They retire and receive about 80% of their former wage - then are rehired at the starting wage (about $28,000).

I AGREE that once a person officially retires from a public service position, that they should NOT be allowed to return to work in that position, and collect a second check from the same source. That's flagrantly abusing the system (and is unethical), even if it is legal there.

However, if a person wishes to retire from public education, and then takes a position from the private sector (maybe say, teaching in Catholic school for $25K); I don't believe that is corrupt. That seems like a good financial plan, actually; even if it is a crummy twilight--to work and save until you aren't physically able anymore.

Its worth noting that Wisconsin was not facing a budget shortfall, and is not in need of austerity measures:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/...udget-shortfall-to-undercut-worker-rights.php

That was an item on The Ed Show on MSNBC recently also.

If the state government of Wisconsin is in fact in the black, as suggested by Ed's research; then I'll bet that their governor is probably projecting (without admitting to it) that they WOULD have a deficit--only after he's done diminishing or eliminating altogether, taxes on business and industry.

Realistically: industry and big business probably got the governor elected; and so he's going to have to "make good" on whatever financial promises he made to them; even by throwing something else out of whack (namely: public employee pensions and benefits programs). Unions generally support Democrats, and not Republicans; so those people aren't his constituents anyway, in his view.

What never ceases to make me laugh though: is that politicians across the country--while they keep "making these difficult cuts in the name of fiscal responsibility"--they never seem to count themselves also as being a part of "public service employees" or "city workers" or "state workers." And yet, they certainly receive benefits better than anyone else who works in the public sector. It just seems like most politicians do not lead by the example of personal belt tightening.

I hear so much of that and other related things, it is hard for me to feel sympathy for teachers. I've heard them say they work long hours, yet few ever work more than 45 hours a week and have all summer off (most I know work summer jobs!).

Some people are lazy. It really doesn't matter what industry we're talking about.

I have honestly worked long hours regularly though (and almost always weekends); usually (while at work) between 10-12 hours a day during the work week (4-5 additional at home on Saturday or Sunday). And I have--exactly once in my career, as a teacher--gotten paid through the summer time.

If you DO have a union, generally they will fight to get you these options: (1) dividing your salary over 10 months, so you take home more per check (and adding to the illusion that you actually get paid well); or (2) taking less per check, but over the comfort of 12 months instead. It's the same salary you agreed to by contract. I've wished I could have been paid by the hour in some instances.

The sane thing to do is to stretch it out though, so you can survive (in case you can't find a job). But usually, if you do find work over the summer though, it'll be at Home Depot or something outside of teaching, that doesn't pay but minimum wage; or at least close to it.

I've heard complaints about it taking a long time to get tenure (5 years!) mixed with complaints about the poor performance of older, burned-out teachers. Teaching really is a pretty sweet deal and in a poor economy, even sweet deals need to be on the cutting table.

It's hard to say that, I would think, unless you've actually done it yourself. I've worked in Jersey City, as well as the St. George's section of Staten Island, NY (which is kind of a misnomer if you ask me--hardly anything saintly about the place some days). You are actually in danger of getting killed in some place in NY and NJ. School feels a lot like jail for kids (only they really didn't do anything). It's a bad vibe for everyone.

And even when you are not worrying about life and death, you're worried about getting so frustrated at the common indifference, the unfairness, and the cruelty you experience so regularly, that you'll break down and yell at some kid (or worse) and get fired.

I consider it a form of social work though; and that is honestly why I've always done it.

Ultimately, our job is to try to provide stability somehow, for generations of people maybe without any at home. And that isn't easy, when you aren't family to start with. You have to their build trust (maybe a 100 people a day). Students are not adults however; and they are not getting paid to be there at all. To be there simply for "their own good" is not enough of a reason to cooperate. And then remember also, that you have to try to convince them to listen to you about whatever subject you teach; and when probably, it's the furthest thing from their own minds. They may be wondering, after all, about getting jumped, raped, shot, stabbed, mugged or whatever have you, themselves.

City workers, I agree though, should have equal benefits and pay scales, and pensions, and retirement rules across EVERY branch of city services. I don't think I'm better than a sanitation worker, a cop, or a firemen.

I will say one legitimate complaint is the continuing education requirements. They're basically required to get phd's for the sake of getting phd's.

It depends on the State. NJ for example, doesn't require an actual Masters in Education (although they strongly encourage it). They demand instead that you get certification; and what that entails is taking maybe 3 less grad classes than the typical Master program; and then to a pass a Praxis exam for whatever your subject area. There is no Bachelors degree in Education in NJ--you get your Bachelors in whatever subject area you want. I actually went to school for Physics.The unfortunate thing IS the expense though. I have been struggling all along: partly because I already have incurred undergraduate debts; partly because I help support my mother, sisters, and nephew; and partly because my salary has been so bad at times (even while working full time, very long hours), that I can't afford my grad classes to get either my Masters or Certification even. That's honestly why I left NJ. But then there's the commute--driving 60 miles away, through NYC traffic, at 6 AM, to get to work by 8 AM, where daily I am then confronted with the task of informing people who frankly don't want to know anything about Math.

Actually, it's a pretty thankless job, most of the time. And I've kept doing it, only because I've had this delusion that somehow I was actually helping people climb out of their own socio-economic tradition.

To tell the truth: I'm looking to leave it now though, teaching. I swear to you: I honestly cannot afford to live anymore, doing it. It is NOT an economically viable career path, the way it is HERE, at least, in NY and NJ.

http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2011/02/03/2011-02-03_mikes_reform_plan__no_pension_till_65.html

I ask: what's the life expectancy of a sanitation worker (or other city worker) anyway? I can't imagine it's too high wading through NYC refuse for 20-30 years.

With the way things are going with Union busting of late (in New York and New Jersey in particular), I really don't feel optimistic about the future. I really DON'T BELIEVE there will be either a pension, or social security for me, by the time I am 65.

And the way people talk about things like that: you'd think it was the most alien concept to America. I mean they might as well be saying: "Pension plan? That's sooo 20th century."

My family pretty much thinks I'm nuts anyway. They look at me and say: so you're the guy who went to college--got your Bachelors degree in Physics--and now you want to work for minimum wage in Catholic school.

I have to admit: that certainly does sounds pretty stupid.

They get paid extra for it, but it doesn't really add much value imo. So if they drop the continuing ed requirements, they could save money and save the headache for the teachers.

I don't get paid to advance myself--that would be nice though. I wish someone would pay for my Masters at least (being it's required in some places to get and/or keep the job to begin with).

I wouldn't either, but it is also more because I can't stand other people's kids and actually like engineering, not because of the salary and benefits...though my income potential is better as an engineer. My teacher-friends acknowledge that engineering is more difficult than teaching, though.

It might be more difficult for them, if they are naturally intimidated by Science or Math.

 

[Gokul43201]

Meh so how long will they be willing to protest for?

My guess: they could keep going through till the end of next week. Why? The weather. Wisconsin is seeing a stretch of ridiculously warm temps. You can bet we wouldn't have seen 20K strong protests (not to mention celebrity protesters like JJ) if we'd been having typical 10 degree days instead of this recent spell of nearly Egypt-like temperatures.

 

[russ_watters]

You would not believe, but not all teachers partied though communications degree , many have science degrees (physics, mathematics, etc). FrancisZ has degree in physics.

That's true, but is it really the norm? Not that I know a huge number of teachers, but of the half dozen or so I know, few have science degrees - though one is a math teacher, with a math degree. Most have liberal arts degrees and will readily admit to having partied their way through them.

Regarding your data, I guess it includes schools with unions, i.e public schools. My quote in previous post was for catolic schools without unions. So if unions for public schools will be baned then I guess salaries for teachers will drop to the range of 20,000-30,000 without summer paid and without benefits as it is now in schools without unions.

That doesn't follow: supply and demand would intervene and the resulting salary would end up somewhere in between.

But I guess, it does not bother you, since it seems you think that engeneers superior to teachers.

They are and the pay is better because of it. Several of my teacher friends have also readily admitted they couldn't possibly do engineering.

 

[russ_watters]

Russ: You struggled through an engineering degree, instead of partying... Well, it's good to know that the world is binary.

I don't. We're all talking in generalities here.

I'd add... $258 million USD over 10 years... and? How does the existence of beaureapathologies in government (shocker) in any way support the argument to dissolve unions and double pension contributions?

I don't follow - isn't it obvious? Does the existence of such things not bother you because it is unsurprising?

As for job security... it would seem that comes as a result of... collective bargaining.

That would be true if only teachers who had unions had tenure. Do they?

That is unless what you're seeing now counts as job security, in which case I envy your sense of fun and a lack of care for the future.

I don't follow - are you claiming that teachers don't have near absolute job security?

 

[russ_watters]

The pension is paid from money the employee contributed to the pension fund, money the employer paid in and any interest the money earned while in the fund. So this is money already owed. It will be paid to the employee whether he retires now or ten years from now. So the taxpayer is not out any extra money.

C'mon, Janus, that's ridiculous. If the pension pays out more money because the teachers retire early, more money has to be paid-in to cover it - and the vast majority of the original contributions you listed comes from the employer (taxes). There'd be much less of an issue if 2/3 of the contributions came from the employee, such as in a 401k.

You have to acknowledge the reality here: The teachers would not be doing it if it meant getting less money.

The monthly pension generally is figured from how much money the employee has in his fund and how long he is expected to live. The earlier he retires, the smaller his monthly pension. It is gauged so that the money should last out the rest of his natural life. The only way it costs the taxpayer more than the money already in his fund is if he lives longer than average life expectancy.

In the example already given, the pension was a flat 80% regardless of when the person retires. So earlier retirement means more money paid out.

Again, At least in the case in my state's public pension, this doesn't cost the taxpayer anything more than he would have paid otherwise.

Then why on Earth would any teacher ever take advantage of it? Where's the benefit?

No, since they paid in more, their pension account would be larger, and since by their calculated life expectancy, they would live fewer years after retiring, Their monthly pension would increase accordingly.
In fact, since the employer would have to contribute to the pension fund while the employee continued to work without retiring, it would cost the taxpayer more for him to work till 65 and then retire than for him to retire at 55, and work post retirement at the same salary, assuming he lives out his expected lifespan.

Again, if that's true, why would any teacher ever take advantage of this?

It would be reasonable if there was a pro and a con for the teacher and all pro for the taxpayers, but I don't see anything to suggest that is the case: it looks like all pro for the teachers and all con for the taxpayers.

 

[russ_watters]

I AGREE that once a person officially retires from a public service position, that they should NOT be allowed to return to work in that position, and collect a second check from the same source. That's flagrantly abusing the system (and is unethical), even if it is legal there.

However, if a person wishes to retire from public education, and then takes a position from the private sector (maybe say, teaching in Catholic school for $25K); I don't believe that is corrupt. That seems like a good financial plan, actually; even if it is a crummy twilight--to work and save until you aren't physically able anymore.

Agreed and it's actually not necessarily so crummy: it is often a lifestyle choice that enables a person to work fewer hours while getting paid and still doing something they love, which increases their standard of living. A retired music teacher I know works part time at a music store and part time as a college professor. People do this sort of thing all the time because a lot of people get bored when they retire, so they turn their previous job/passion into a hobby that still pays them.

Some people are lazy. It really doesn't matter what industry we're talking about.

Yes it does if they work in an industry that grants them tenure after 5 years! There is a huge difference in job security afforded to teachers vs other industries.

Part of the logic (at least in my head) for getting paid overtime in a white-collar job is to compensate for the lower job security. I work in construction engineering and we're at the whim of the economy in a way that teachers aren't. My company laid-off 15% of its employees and cut the engineers' hours to 36 and admin staff to 32 for a little over a year. And from what I understand, we did much, much better than average. Now I'm working a lot of overtime and am going to make 20-30% more than during the year of the downturn. But I happily accepted the pay cut in return for a much lower chance of getting laid-off. Teachers should not be immune to such economic realities (any union, for that matter: the stuff others get away with is sickening).

I have honestly worked long hours...

And I respect that, I just don't perceive it to be the norm.

The sane thing to do is to stretch it out though, so you can survive (in case you can't find a job). But usually, if you do find work over the summer though, it'll be at Home Depot or something outside of teaching, that doesn't pay but minimum wage; or at least close to it.

Yes, a pair that I know have worked for years at a golf course in the summer at the snack bar and bar. It pays reasonably well if you're a female with nice legs, but it's not a "real" job - of course, a second job usually isn't.

It's hard to say that, I would think, unless you've actually done it yourself.

I will freely acknowledge I can only speak about people I know and the people I know are for the most part in the richest county in Pennsylvania. Yes, I understand that the "deal" varies considerably from place to place.

And even when you are not worrying about life and death, you're worried about getting so frustrated at the common indifference, the unfairness, and the cruelty you experience so regularly, that you'll break down and yell at some kid (or worse) and get fired.

I consider it a form of social work though; and that is honestly why I've always done it.

Well those are the reasons I would never do it and in my perception why it is more often women who do it: women are more interested in social work.

Actually, it's a pretty thankless job, most of the time. And I've kept doing it, only because I've had this delusion that somehow I was actually helping people climb out of their own socio-economic tradition.

I've heard plenty of stories that agree that it can be a punishing job self esteem-wise. Another good reason I'd never do it...though the same can be said about sales.

With the way things are going with Union busting of late (in New York and New Jersey in particular), I really don't feel optimistic about the future. I really DON'T BELIEVE there will be either a pension, or social security for me, by the time I am 65.

You may be right. At least for me, most of my retirement savings I personally own (401k, IRA), so my goal is to have enough so that if SS fails I'll still be able to live. So for that I can sympathize: the state controls your pension, right? So you're at the mercy of a government for all of your retirement.

 

[Greg Bernhardt]

Madison police spokesman Joel DeSpain expressed confidence that the demonstrations would come off peacefully. He said police are planning for crowds of 30,000 to 50,000.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/116517683.html

 

[Gokul43201]

Clever message from a teacher:

 

[Gokul43201]

Something else that hasn't been brought up is that the police, fireman and lawmaker's are exempt from this bill.

Well... sure... the first is an industry, the second are generally considered heros, and third are making the bill.

There's an additional potential distinction. The police and firefighters' unions (specifically in Milwaukee) were the (only two) unions that supported Walker's campaign.

Walker's (somewhat legitimate, IMO) argument is that the police and fire departments provide an emergency service, so it would be dangerous to have them go on strike. Not sure how well that applies to lawmakers though.

 

[WhoWee]

Then he should approach it reasonably- renegotiate the contract. Hamstringing the collective bargaining rights is ridiculous.

Apparently, it typically requires more than 12 months to complete this type of negotiation - time has run out - shouldn't that have happened two years ago? I heard a fellow talking on TV this AM about an "emergency assistance" plan being considered in Washington - another $Trillion bailout? LOL The problem is the average wages are $50 - 55,000 and the benefits (unseen) are an additional $25,000 - for 9 months of work. Is that realistic and sustainable - more importantly - is education producing positive results under this protected system? I say fire some underperforming teachers and hire someone who will do a better job - like FrancisZ.

 

[AlephZero]

C'mon, Janus, that's ridiculous. If the pension pays out more money because the teachers retire early, more money has to be paid-in to cover it.

And the scale of the difference is so big that I guess nobody wants to talk about it.

Laurence Kotlikoff, a US-based economist, reckons that the US has promised to pay out over $200,000 billion more in the long run than it seems inclined to collect in taxes - this is roughly 15 times bigger than both the official US national debt and the US economy. ... if Kotlkoff's estimate looks huge, if should: to close it would require halving spending on everything else in the US government budget from this point forward, or doubling every tax.

Source: Financial Times weekend magazine section, Feb 19/20 2011.

This is not just a US problem. The UK public sector pension liabilities amount to about £750 to £1000 billion of unofficial government debt, and the state pension liability (a universal benefit) is well over £1000 billion.

I don't have any numbers to compare Wisconsin with the US national average position, but it would be remarkable if it was 15 times better than average.

 

[Janus]

Apparently, they've known for almost a year that pensions needed to be addressed. I don't think the 5.5% the Governor wants them to contribute is unreasonable - as you said - it's their money.

It depends on the back history. For example, in my state, back in the early 80's, state employees paid 6% into their pension. Then one year, the state decided that it would cost them less to offer to pay for the employees 6% contribution than it would give to them cost of living adjustments over the length of the contract. They presented this idea during contract negotiations, and the state employees accepted.

At the same time many, but not all school districts did the same thing, even though they were under the same pension system. In other words, some districts went for COLAs , and some went for the 6% pickup.

Fast forward a little more than a decade. Some people start to claim that it isn't fair that state employees do not contribute to their own pensions and get an initiative on the ballot that required all members of the public pension system to pay the 6% out of their pocket.

During the campaign, the facts of how this 6% pick-up came into being was brought to light, and the voters rejected it, deeming it not right to take something away from public employees that the employees had already given up COLAs for.

So, without knowing how the present pension system in Wisconsin evolved, I can't say whether it is fair or not to ask the employees to pay 5.5% towards it.

 

[nismaratwork]

I don't. We're all talking in generalities here. I don't follow - isn't it obvious? Does the existence of such things not bother you because it is unsurprising? That would be true if only teachers who had unions had tenure. Do they? I don't follow - are you claiming that teachers don't have near absolute job security?

In general it's probably helpful to steer a discussion of concrete matters that are ongoing away from generalties. I would tend to hope that we'd all want to raise the tone of the discussion, not simply match or lower it. I'd add, my response was of course meant to highlight that very issue. So, given that generalty is out there, what do you really think about teachers?

As to the, "existence of such things" bothering me... no. The pathologies here have a minimal impact compared to those in saaaay... MMS (Minerals Management Service), DoD, Medicare/aid, etc. This strikes me as a very minimal thing to adress in service of a very particular ideology.

I don't know, do they have tenure? I'm not clear on how this works... you make sweeping generalizations bound to insult any teacher here (and no, I'm not a teacher), but I should go mining for information? If you want to toss hypotheticals about job security back and forth, a time when teachers are being confronted with "layoffs", or what's happening in WI is probably a poor time to use that tactic.

Nothing you've said indicates less than a biased view, and a desire to manage how others percieve an ideological move to bust unions. You'll note I haven't disagreed or weighed in regarding the pension issue... or maybe not.

 

[nismaratwork]

There's an additional potential distinction. The police and firefighters' unions (specifically in Milwaukee) were the (only two) unions that supported Walker's campaign.

Walker's (somewhat legitimate, IMO) argument is that the police and fire departments provide an emergency service, so it would be dangerous to have them go on strike. Not sure how well that applies to lawmakers though.

Now that... I didn't know, but as you say it makes no sense to apply to lawmakers. Even then, Christie slashed the police in CAMDEN, so I think that the concern over lawlessness in WI may be more of boogeyman.

The bottom line is that, and I think we'd both agree here, we're skimming the surface of an issue where there are no "good guys", and a lot of complexity. To me, IMO, it appears that this is a political move that any party would make given the chance, although the target would be different.

I'd love to see a comparison between the much derided "community activism", at the level of improving schooling, compared to shoving police into an area to deal with the fallout from a useless education and weak job prospects.

 

[Janus]

C'mon, Janus, that's ridiculous. If the pension pays out more money because the teachers retire early, more money has to be paid-in to cover it - and the vast majority of the original contributions you listed comes from the employer (taxes). There'd be much less of an issue if 2/3 of the contributions came from the employee, such as in a 401k.

You have to acknowledge the reality here: The teachers would not be doing it if it meant getting less money.

Again, under my state's pension plan, The teacher is just deciding to take his pension in smaller amounts over a longer time, rather than wait to get larger payments over a shorter time. As to why teacher's would do this rather than wait to get the larger payments, there are a lot of reason, even if, in the long run, they get less money. Some might just decide that it better to have extra money now, rather than later. Others just might need that money now. Not every teacher does it either.

In the example already given, the pension was a flat 80% regardless of when the person retires. So earlier retirement means more money paid out.

I am going to assume that this 80% is a cap, and not that you get 80% no matter how long you've work. In other words, I doubt that a employee who worked for only 10 yrs before reaching retirement age would get the same 80% as someone who worked for 30 yrs.

In this case, there is no reason for the teacher not to retire when he is eligible for that 80%, at 30 yrs, since waiting to retire add any value to his pension. So, in this case, your main objection seems to be the fact that a teacher who stated working at age 25, could retire at age 55 at 80% of their wages, rather than be made to wait until, say, 65 before getting a pension. So it is less a matter of his working after retiring as it is that he can retire at an early enough age to do so.

Then why on Earth would any teacher ever take advantage of it? Where's the benefit? Again, if that's true, why would any teacher ever take advantage of this?

As I said above, For a teacher in my state its a matter of when they want or need their money. For many it comes down to a cost/benefit analysis: Do I retire now, collect a smaller pension, and continue to work, during which time I make more money, but meaning that I get less money after I do quit working, or do I wait a few more years to retire so I'll have more money after I quit working?
And I'm not saying that there isn't any advantage for the teacher. He is getting a paycheck and pension while he continues to work. But the state is not out any more money than if he simply decided to retire, as to replace him with someone of equal value, they still would have to give that paycheck to someone else. If the district decides not to refill the position, I don't seeing them rehiring the retiree. Remember, this is a two way street. The district wouldn't do it if there was not some advantage for them. (Usually is in the form of not paying pension contributions and a fringe package)

It would be reasonable if there was a pro and a con for the teacher and all pro for the taxpayers, but I don't see anything to suggest that is the case: it looks like all pro for the teachers and all con for the taxpayers.

Obviously it varies from state to state, but I covered the pros and cons for the teacher in my state.

As to the pro for the taxpayer, it is retaining an experienced teacher at less cost, keeping in mind that the pension is paid out whether the teacher is hired back or not.

 

[vici10]

That's true, but is it really the norm? Not that I know a huge number of teachers, but of the half dozen or so I know, few have science degrees - though one is a math teacher, with a math degree. Most have liberal arts degrees and will readily admit to having partied their way through them.

It is better to look into statistics and see. According to national center for education statistics http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_070.asp
only 2% teachers have less than bachelor degree, 44.5% have bachelor degrees, 46% have master degrees and 1.5% have professional or Ph.D.
10.3% have degree in Mathematics, 12.7% have degrees in Natural sciences and 19.6% have degrees in Social Sciences. 0.9% of those teachers in Mathematics and 3% in Natural Sciences have Ph.D's.

So more than half have higher than bachelor degrees and 23% studied hard sciences.

Compare it to statistics for those who work in Science and Engineering Occupations as defined by Bureau of Labor Statistics.

http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/infbrief/nsf04333/

More than four million individuals with at least a high school education were employed in science and engineering (S&E) occupations in the United States as of April 2003. Within this group, a substantial proportion, 22 percent, reported either a high school diploma (5 percent) or an associate's degree (17 percent) as their highest level of educational attainment (table 1). Among the remaining proportion, 48 percent held a bachelor's degree, about 22 percent held a master's degree, 7 percent held a doctorate, and about 2 percent held a professional degree...

Significant numbers of individuals employed in computer and math science occupations and engineering occupations have high school diplomas or associate's degrees but no higher college degrees (table 2). Approximately 40 percent of all individuals employed in computer and math science occupations and 20 percent of all individuals employed in engineering occupations have no higher than an associate's degree.

In light of this statistics, I do not see teachers as unskilled and lazy in comparison to engineers.

That doesn't follow: supply and demand would intervene and the resulting salary would end up somewhere in between.

This is an article of faith on your part. I cannot argue with faith. The fact is that non-union workers especially in catholic schools make $20,000-30,000

They are and the pay is better because of it. Several of my teacher friends have also readily admitted they couldn't possibly do engineering.

And you admitted you cannot do teaching. I suppose it is comforting to think about yourself as superior and hence deserving better treatment. Although regarding engineers and teachers your feelings are not based on facts (see statistics above).
Besides, I do not believe that teachers provide less socially important work than engeneers.

 

[cobalt124]

I'm intrigued about the role of unions in the U.S., I think my confusion comes from there being different situations in different states.

Personally I don't have a problem with the benefit/wage cuts

Neither would I, as long as they were fair, and seen to be fair, and negotiated in an open and transparent manner.

But Freedom of Association works both ways: employees are free to associate with employers and each other or not as they see fit, and so are employers.

As long as it is fair on both sides. I suspect their are examples of unfairness on both sides in the U.S.

In this case, like many others, union leaders are using the phrase "collective bargaining" to refer to current union benefits above and beyond what the words "collective bargaining" actually mean, such as a restriction on the ability of the state to hire replacements, etc.

There is no right to job security? The state could rehire for any reason they desired?

Wiki says "Collective agreements usually set out wage scales, working hours, training, health and safety, overtime, grievance mechanisms and rights to participate in workplace or company affairs."

That sounds like a reasonable definition. Any issue that has a direct affect on the employee.

Yes, exactly. Far more than the phrase "collective bargaining" generically means. And failure of an employer to agree to employee demands does not constitute violating their right to collectively negotiate for them. Neither would a refusal of an employer to negotiate at all. I have the right to negotiate for a lower price at a car lot, and refuse to buy (as leverage), but that right imposes no obligation on the car lot whatsoever.

I don't see how the right to car ownership is as important as the right to work, its an inadequate comparison IMO. I'm assuming here that every state enshines the right to work either as state law, or by union representation. I may be wrong.

I still can't understand why any Government workers need protection from their employer?

I don't understand why they wouldn't, unless there is something in state law that protects them. You can argue whether the protestors here are justified in their claims, but as a separate issue, are they protected?

In our state, some government officials, both R & D, have 'retired' then continue in office. That way, they can collect a pension as well as salary, well before they reach retirement age. We have double dippers, triple dippers, and more.

I am currently going through the process of reapplying for my job (local government U.K.), so people who are under threat of losing their job can either take early retirement (pension) or voluntary redundancy (lump sum payoff). The employer can accept or refuse either solely based on it's own requirements. So if the emmployer requires people to go, they should stump up, and then whether or not the employee gets another job/consultancy is a non-issue. If the U.S. situation has made this some sort of "right" for the employee, then that is clearly wrong, and the "x-dipping" needs to be stopped. And drawing a pension while working should be stopped.

One our Congressman is a retired colonel from the military. He made a point to suspend his military retirement because he's drawing a salary from Congress. That is appropriate and commendable. Apparently he's an exception. Many others, state and federal, collect one or more pensions before retirement age, while drawing a salary from a different government job.

Which is the example that should be taken, I suppose some would argue that a colonel and congressman would be in more of a position to do that, and I also suppose some are in that position and "dipping their hands in the till"

Under the new bill pension contribution would increase from .2% to 5.8%. That is still a sweet deal!

And it may be necessary. Times are hard.

pensions that are set up so that it makes the most sense to retire and immediately got back to work should be reworked

Agreed. That is not what pensions are for.

I am in the union- I can opt out and save $10...I don't really understand how I benefit from the AAUP...and I don't have confidence that the administration can determine what is best for me... the AAUP (and our local union reps) often takes a very adversarial posture when a more thoughtful discussion is needed...To be sure, employee unions can be very important...I've worked years without union protection and would have a hard time claiming the working environment was substantively worse than now.

Taking the points in order:
$10 per year!. My union membership is £20 per MONTH. And 50% of the workforce consider that worth paying because the employer takes every opportunity it can to screw its employees.
Many union benefits are invisible as their very presence prevents a lot of what employers would like to do, so effects are not seen, and unions taken for granted.
I wouldn't trust my employer as far as I could throw it to be responsible on employee rights.
My union and the employer have been conciliatory and reasonable in the past few years negotiations. However they are now polarising due to the current circumstances.
There will be examples of working environments that are far worse for not having union representation.

unscrupulous people can write laws that benefit them personally

Allowing this to happen contributes to the problem, whichever country.

If Americans think that their children should be educated by people who paid this amount of money then yes, go ahead and forbid them to unionize.

Yes I'm old. It used to be that teaching was a respected profession. What we sow we reap.

an attempt to destroy the powerbase of the opposition in the name of saving money.

Confrontation is not the best path. Neither is making the opposition an enemy. They should negotiate.

If Democrats put a provision to disallow corporations from participating in the political process, even indirectly, under the rubric of 'saving money'... I can't imagine a better outcome.

And, if I understand correctly what you are saying, there would be less need for union representation for employees.

The state entered into an collective bargaining agreement, and rather than honor the terms of the contract, it wants to ban the union from collective bargaining and ignore the contract.

An unprincipled approach that gives justification to union representation.

Shouldn't retired people - retire?

Yes. Anything else in an abuse of a retirement scheme. Don't you have the notion of "voluntary/compulsory redundancy" payments in the U.S.?

As for job security... it would seem that comes as a result of... collective bargaining.

That is my understanding too. I dread to think what working conditions would be like otherwise.

There you have it- teaching is a low prestige occupation, that isn't particularly well compensated. And its hard- hard enough that the attrition rate is insane. Something like 50% quit within 5 years. Most don't seem to want the job, but somehow feel that the average teacher is a greedy lack-wit suckling at the government's teat.

It would seem this is how the teaching profession is treated. To what extent does this profession affect a countrys future prosperity? I think they deserve fair treatment.

The fact is, the unions were granted contracts from the state. Its possible the state cannot honor its end due to the recession- so the answer is to renegotiate.

And they should be honest and renegotiate.

I have heard some say they are trying to make Wisconsin a Right-to-Work state with this, but then folks are saying they are trying to end the ability of the union to do collective bargaiing...? Wouldn't the two be different? Because unions can exist in Right-to-Work states, its just an employee is not mandated to have to join the union (I think).

I would hope that each state would at least have one of them.

I AGREE that once a person officially retires from a public service position, that they should NOT be allowed to return to work in that position, and collect a second check from the same source. That's flagrantly abusing the system (and is unethical), even if it is legal there.

It shouldn't be legal to do so.

However, if a person wishes to retire from public education, and then takes a position from the private sector (maybe say, teaching in Catholic school for $25K); I don't believe that is corrupt.

Because there is no effect on taxpayers money? It seems the same to me, it still seems unethical.

Realistically: industry and big business probably got the governor elected; and so he's going to have to "make good" on whatever financial promises he made to them

I could understand the need for union representation to stand against this.

I have honestly worked long hours regularly though (and almost always weekends); usually (while at work) between 10-12 hours a day during the work week (4-5 additional at home on Saturday or Sunday). And I have--exactly once in my career, as a teacher--gotten paid through the summer time.

I'm assuming they are unpaid extra hours. That wouldn't surprise me.

That doesn't follow: supply and demand would intervene and the resulting salary would end up somewhere in between.

If supply and demand were left to decide it, yes. I think political/corporate interference would obstruct it. Even if they didn't I don't think supply and demand should be left alone to influence the quality of education of a countrys future generations.

are you claiming that teachers don't have near absolute job security?

That is my understanding from reading this thread.

 

[ParticleGrl]

I heard a fellow talking on TV this AM about an "emergency assistance" plan being considered in Washington - another $Trillion bailout? LOL

Do you have a reference?

The problem is the average wages are $50 - 55,000 and the benefits (unseen) are an additional $25,000 - for 9 months of work.

Where are your numbers for average wages of teachers in Wisconsin? I can't seem to find reliable numbers, I get an average in the range of 47-53 depending on what source I look at. How many years experience does the average teacher in Wisconsin have?

Also, how are you valuing the benefits?

Finally, given your numbers, can you mount an argument that experienced educators shouldn't make $70,000+. Consider this paper- http://papers.nber.org/papers/w16606 which suggests that the a good kindergarden teacher with a class of 20 creates marginal gains in excess of $400,000.

As I said above, I think a lot of the anti-union sentiment comes from people who fervently believe that most teachers are lazy halfwits, and no data will convince them otherwise. Every field has its incompetents, but the majority of teachers I've met are dedicated, hard working people, who could be easily making more money doing other things.

 

[nismaratwork]

@Cobalt123: We'd seem to largely agree on this issue, so... very good and detailed post.

 

[FrancisZ]

Agreed and it's actually not necessarily so crummy: it is often a lifestyle choice that enables a person to work fewer hours while getting paid and still doing something they love, which increases their standard of living. A retired music teacher I know works part time at a music store and part time as a college professor. People do this sort of thing all the time because a lot of people get bored when they retire, so they turn their previous job/passion into a hobby that still pays them.

But then there are also those that have no choice but to work into old age. In NYC, if what Bloomberg is proposing, reaches fruition, then they'll force teachers, police, firefighters, and sanitation workers to retire at 55; and then proceed to wait until 65 (if they live that long) to begin to collect their pensions. Your spouse can never collect it, even as is. And in the ten year gap in between, workers shall then have to seek work in the private sector.

But there aren't any private sector garbage men in NYC; so they'd have to move. And if they don't have an income, that could also be tricky.

Yes it does if they work in an industry that grants them tenure after 5 years! There is a huge difference in job security afforded to teachers vs other industries.

The reason that teachers are offered tenure, is for an incentive to actually stay (job security--albeit in the $30k-70k range for most of their career, in inner cities). That is to say: you can risk it, and hope for better salary in the private sector working for a publisher of textbooks maybe; but you can also settle for a mid-middle class lifestyle for 20 years or so.

But the truth is that: many would not want to stay in an environment that risks there life every day. The same goes for cops. The difference being that the police have authority to arrest people (and have weapons of their own--which they get in trouble for using, if they are NYPD).

Ultimately, teacher pension programs and benefits are not all created equal. If you work in the suburbs where property taxes are higher, then you might be making a generous salary of 80k or higher.

I'm all for standardization myself. Personally, if I were in a position of authority: I would not allow the disparity in school budgets to continue.

The way things are: if you live in Camden, NJ where property taxes are lower; as a result, your local schools have a much weaker resource budget than if (say for example) you lived in Old Bridge, NJ (which is a suburb). In effect, that means that NOT all schools are created equal, either. And being that we, as a society, are dependent upon our schools to form an equally upright, and informed citizenry; then we are plainly failing in that endeavor as well.

So at least within the confines of the State (and personally, I'm more of a Federalist where education is concerned), then I think they ought to create a mass pool of all property taxes, which could then be distributed to all of the schools, proportionately to student enrollment number per school.

Frankly, I'm tired of this damn confederacy. There's no such thing as "American" education; the States have too many rights (and the policies of which are frequently incongruent). We can't compete with other nations abroad, because we have 50 nations of our own here to contend with.

I say: we need an actual Federal Standard of Education--based at least partly upon whatever they're doing right in South Korea, or elsewhere.

Respect to Massachusetts for their Math scores.

Part of the logic (at least in my head) for getting paid overtime in a white-collar job is to compensate for the lower job security.

Tell me about it--my father has worked in project management for the City of New York (in one form or another) for almost 40 years. And I expect that he shall have to work until the day he drops dead also. No job security; it's totally dependent upon the economy. Which is also why I have had to support my mother frequently myself (they're separated); and that I can barely afford to live.

He can make as much as $120k a year with over time doing site safety through private firms. You wouldn't know it though, the way he pisses money away. He has no pension coming to him, and he parties all of the time. In this past year alone, he went to Moscow, Costa Rica, and the Poconos (all for vacation). I went to Lake George, NY last summer for the first time since 1995.

I don't think my father is lazy though; so much as he is irresponsible (where family is concerned; but that's another story). In his work, he was always straight as an arrow, in fact; which is also why he'd find himself unemployed a lot, while we were growing up. The construction industry in New York City is notoriously crooked. Projects ALWAYS go over budget in NY. If materials aren't getting stolen by local thugs, then they're getting stolen by the mafia, and/or unscrupulous project managers.

And frequently salaries get padded through the duration of the project also (from the top, down).

It's a joke--they'll put something in wrong ON PURPOSE! Or they say: whut'r'ya'gunna'do--I got half your freaggin building up already? You really want me to walk off the project? I'll call the freaggin union!" Many of which are also mafia.

Bad seeds are far and wide.

I work in construction engineering and we're at the whim of the economy in a way that teachers aren't. My company laid-off 15% of its employees and cut the engineers' hours to 36 and admin staff to 32 for a little over a year. And from what I understand, we did much, much better than average. Now I'm working a lot of overtime and am going to make 20-30% more than during the year of the downturn. But I happily accepted the pay cut in return for a much lower chance of getting laid-off.

I would too--I would take a pay cut probably (within reason) to keep my job. But it's more difficult to say that, after you've already started contributing to a pension. You agreed to something a long time ago that potentially is going to be reneged upon.

There's one for contract lawyers.

Still, frankly, you guys ought to be unionized. I mean a reputable union. I'm saying that as a son whose father was out of work in project management every 4 to 5 years on average, growing up. It's very hard on the family.


I won't justify crime. But the reason something like the mafia--or any sort of scary union really--exists, is because the working poor are smart enough at least to know that they'll never have a far chance on there own. The system is rigged against you.

For capitalism to reach an apex--in its purist form--there can only be two classes.

Teachers should not be immune to such economic realities (any union, for that matter: the stuff others get away with is sickening).

The problem is, if you start firing teachers every time the economy takes a dive (and in Catholic schools, that is EXACTLY what they do), then ultimately you are going to adversely effect the outcome of your kid's education.

The total number of students isn't ever going to diminish in compulsory education. So what ends up happening, is that a school will then attempt to stuff 40 kids into one classroom. That means that the teachers who remain have to spread themselves over 10-20 more people. That's 10-20 more people who don't want to know jack about the Protestant Reformation.

Analogous to this: is Camden firing half of it's police force. Did crime suddenly plummet somehow in Camden, for the mayor to think that was a sensible idea? No--and the governor of NJ didn't take a pay cut for anyone either. As a matter of fact, he's said himself, that the executive branch is overdue for a pay raise.

Politicians are "public workers" whether they consider themselves, or not. Let them lead by example; and put their own money where their mouths are.

And I respect that, I just don't perceive it to be the norm.

When a union controls you to the point that you are literally forbidden from staying after school to help a struggling student with math: that is an abomination--because it defeats the very purpose of being a teacher. And if that sort of thing is going on anywhere, then I wholeheartedly agree that their union needs a reboot.

But I've had a lot of odd jobs since high school; and really I've seen laziness in just about every field I've interacted with (at least according to my own standards).

Yes, a pair that I know have worked for years at a golf course in the summer at the snack bar and bar. It pays reasonably well if you're a female with nice legs, but it's not a "real" job - of course, a second job usually isn't.

I'll have to remember to shave my legs. See if I can pull a Bugs Bunny on them.

I will freely acknowledge I can only speak about people I know and the people I know are for the most part in the richest county in Pennsylvania. Yes, I understand that the "deal" varies considerably from place to place. Well those are the reasons I would never do it and in my perception why it is more often women who do it: women are more interested in social work.

I read you. But I've also considered it a religious benefit to my life.

I've heard plenty of stories that agree that it can be a punishing job self esteem-wise. Another good reason I'd never do it...though the same can be said about sales. You may be right. At least for me, most of my retirement savings I personally own (401k, IRA), so my goal is to have enough so that if SS fails I'll still be able to live. So for that I can sympathize: the state controls your pension, right? So you're at the mercy of a government for all of your retirement.

I've been working already in education for 8 years, and I don't really have a pension per se. I have a 401(k) that's worth about 8 grand so far.


Public education pensions are controlled by District though; and ultimately the State.

 

[FrancisZ]

I'm intrigued about the role of unions in the U.S., I think my confusion comes from there being different situations in different states.

That is correct: there are a great many factors at play.

It shouldn't be legal to do so.

Agreed.

Because there is no effect on taxpayers money? It seems the same to me, it still seems unethical.

Precisely. Catholic schools generally do not receive funding from state or local governments, in the USA.

No one could begrudge you though, getting a job after retirement—you’ll probably have to anyway, because you’re pension is only a percentage of your last years salary (which in New York at least, is usual a pittance). Frankly, the pension sucks.

I could understand the need for union representation to stand against this.

It's why the majority of people join a union: they don't trust in the government.

I'm assuming they are unpaid extra hours. That wouldn't surprise me.

You never get “overtime”—it’s just a salary position.