2007 House Bill 4593 (Expand law allowing teachers to collect pension and salary)

[Comments on this legislation] [Post new comment] [Text and Analysis] [Add to Watch List]
[Previous] [Next]

Introduced by Rep. Tim Melton (D) on April 5, 2007, to revise the law that allows retired teachers to return to work in certain school districts or in certain academic subjects where there is deemed to be a teacher shortage, and not have their pension benefits reduced. In other words, a "retired" teacher may simultaneously collect both a pension check and a paycheck for working. Under current law, the a “retired” teacher already collecting a pension can also collect a salary for up to six years. The bill would extend this to 10 years.
- Referred to the House Education Committee on April 5, 2007.
  - Reported in the House on June 10, 2008, with the recommendation that the substitute (H-6) be adopted and that the bill then pass.
- Substitute offered in the House on June 12, 2008, to replace the previous version of the bill with one that extends the time during which a “retired” teacher already collecting a pension can also collect a salary for from six years to eight years, rather than 10 years in the original version of the bill. The substitute passed in the House by voice vote on June 12, 2008.
Passed in the House (105 to 1) on June 12, 2008, to revise the law that allows retired teachers to return to work in certain school districts or in certain academic subjects where there is deemed to be a teacher shortage, and not have their pension benefits reduced. In other words, a "retired" teacher may simultaneously collect both a pension check and a paycheck for working. Under current law, the a “retired” teacher already collecting a pension can also collect a salary for up to six years. The bill would extend this to eight years. [Vote Details and Comments]
Received in the Senate on June 17, 2008.
- Referred to the Senate Education Committee on June 17, 2008.

Most Recent Comments

1) Pass This Bill ... [by Anonymous Citizen on June 16, 2008]

Someone posted:

“A better solution would entail sign on bonuses for new teachers with longevity pay at five or 10 years.”

As far as I know, signing bonuses and longevity pay are contractual issues to be negotiated and settled by local school districts and their teachers’ unions. They are not matters impeded by state law. My school district does, in fact, offer teacher longevity pay. It does not offer signing bonuses. (How do I know? The contract is a matter of public record.)

On the other hand, skilled teachers (and administrators) who retire and then return to work have some limitations placed by law on the total compensation they can receive. According to the Mackinac Center’s synopsis of this bill, “Under current law, the a ‘retired’ teacher already collecting a pension can also collect a salary for up to six years. The bill would extend this to eight years.”

The two year extension is a modest benefit for teachers who wish to and can return to work.

Many private sector employees retire, then turn right around and go back to work doing the same job from which they retired, as contract workers. They are allowed to collect both their pensions and new paychecks, without State-imposed restriction.

That is the free market in operation.

It seems the only real opposition to legislation like this would likely come from unionized teachers’ and their unions, which have an obvious interest in doing so. Interestingly, though, the unions do not oppose this bill.

Taxpayers, who foot the bill for public education should applaud legislation that abets the cause of placing qualified teachers in classrooms and administrators in their jobs by the most efficient and economical means. This bill is one of them.

The further fact that this basic law was first enacted in 1999, and since has been extended twice. It evidently is a legislation that actually is working constructively for its intended purpose.

Reply

Line

2) A better solution [by Anonymous Citizen on June 16, 2008]
would entail sign on bonuses for new teachers with longevity pay at five or 10 years.
Reply

Line

3) bad for [by Anonymous Citizen on June 16, 2008]
anyone who is not 55 or older--especially in MI--given the current youth flight from the state. Also, in other states where similar legislation has been enacted(because there is a GENUINE teacher shortage), several "retirees" retire midyear so they can come back with two checks.

Is there any language about step pay? In some states they stipulate that the "retiree" must come back at step zero. What ABOUT seniority? What about retirement draining? Would the "retiree" lose retirement healthcare while the district resumes the healthcare costs?

Reply

Line

View Full Conversation