Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the Senate on January 25, 2005

Click here to view bill details.

The only concern I would have is who is going to fund this? Is this paid by the locals out of their foundation money or is the state funding this seperately. This one and bill 55 are the kinds of legislation we need. Keep up the good work.

Never friendly and ever hostile to local control, our Michigan Republican legislators are at it again with this bit of demagoguery.

This bill assumes... 1. A government bureaucracy can do a better job of designing and implementing benefit plans than can the private sector companies currently providing coverage. 2. The way to save on the cost of education is to have the state force a major benefit reduction on school employees. This assumption fails to recognize that quality benefits is a key to attracting quality employees, which in turn affects the quality of our children's education. 3. School employees do not know what coverage(s) they need and the State can make this decision for them.

This is a reply to NOT! Listen its not perfect but at least it is a step at reducing frivolous cost and reduces the control of the state most powerful union.

Well voiced!

What, praytell, are frivolous costs?

The real cost here is the loss of olcal control. It seems absolutely ludacris that the party of small government and local control has recently introduced a littany of legislation that will do nothing more than create bigger government. Zealotry, in their effrot to destroy the MEA, many in this party have abandoned the basic premise of conservatism. The solution to the heath care crisis is not to deny more people quality health care, it should be to fix the problem. Oh thats right, that might take some hard work that would involve consensus building. Addressing health care reform should be the goal here.

Teachers are professionals that hold degrees which require at least four and a half years of education, usually five or more. They are then required to continue their education, usually at their own exspense. They are, however, not paid at the same level as other professionals. The difference in compensation is usually made up for by the unique benefits packages. This is what attracts quality people to the teaching profession. At the core of these benefits is a solid health insurance plan. Many districts have opted to accept lower pay than other districts in their region in order to secure better health care benefits. If the state takes the power of negotiation and choice away from the teachers these differences will have to be adressed. The power to attract quality professionals to the field will be undermined. If we strip this job down to one of the lowest paid in the private sector and remove the quality benefits that teachers have fought for then who will fill the shoes of the retired teachers?

For those of you wondering how exactly the MESSA game works, check out the Wisconsin model. The excerpt is from, the March 21 edition of "EIA Communiqué," a newsletter about teachers' unions: "Health Care Profiteering in Wisconsin. School districts often cite the costs of employee health insurance as the cause of budget cuts and program cutbacks. Teachers, administrators and taxpayers alike complain about health insurers that seem to be making obscene profits out of the paychecks of ordinary working people. Unless you're on the receiving end. The school board in Cedarburg, Wisconsin, paid $4.5 million in premiums on behalf of its employees, but the employees only submitted $3.4 million in health insurance claims. Who got the other $1.1 million? Their insurer, the WEA Trust. Pretty good profit, right? No, the WEA Trust is raising the district's premiums to almost $4.9 million next year. "Well, the market rules, right? The district should simply take its business elsewhere. But it can't, because the teachers' union won't hear of it. You see, the WEA Trust was created by the Wisconsin Education Association Council (WEAC), NEA's state affiliate, and WEAC's board of directors elects the board of the WEA Trust, which is made up of former WEAC officers and activists. Not that the Trust is any hotbed of union solidarity. It had a well-publicized run-in last year with its own employees, whose union accused the Trust of imposing a contract with take-backs in health benefits. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports that Cedarburg will investigate a switch to a self-funded insurance plan."

That’s great. So now tell us something we don’t already know. What is left out of the little story provided here is that in Michigan (I don’t know about Wisconsin, and don’t especially care), health insurance -- including the provider -- is one of the negotiable items that can be on the table during collective bargaining over teacher contracts. So school districts do, in fact, have opportunity to control who they buy insurance from by being assertive during negotiations. SB 56 (together with SB 55) would remove health insurance from the list of negotiable contract items. It would thereby restrict the ability of local school districts to tailor their teacher contracts to suit their local circumstances, and would end any possibility of competition being a force in lowering the cost of this item for local school districts. This is not a constructive approach to solving the problem of skyrocketing health insurace premiums. Even the story from Wisconsin includes a comment that the school district in question does, indeed, have real alternatives to the WI equivalent of MESSA. So what's the real beef?

They can still tailor compensation packages. Health benefits is just one of many items to negotiate.

I'm sorry but if you include benefit packages of many school districts offer then teacher compensation are very competitive. With tenure you also get some security along with it.

Where does that leave a district that has negotiated for health care at the exspense of raises over a long period of time? Presto everything you have sacrificed for is taken away. Now you have the lowest salary in your region and have lost the health benefits that you traded salary for.

You got the point. By acknowledging that health insurance benefits are, indeed, a negotiable item in teacher contracts you have strengthened the argument that SB 56 and its companion, SB 55, are unnecessary and not constructive. That's progress. Even the conservative Mackinac Center -- no friend to the teachers’ unions and MESSA -- says this in its summary of SB 56: “Slightly more than half of Michigan teachers are currently covered by MESSA, an arm of the Michigan Education Association teachers union, which repackages Blue Cross/Blue Shield insurance, collects premiums, and administers benefits. Most other teachers are covered by Blue Cross/Blue Shield without MESSA involvement.” Of course this means that nearly half of Michigan teachers do NOT receive their health insurance coverage through MESSA. And that means MESSA holds far less than the monopoly position the union bashers and MESSA critics like to outright claim or slyly imply it does. Thus, SB 56 and its partner, SB 55, have been concocted to “solve” a “problem” that really doesn’t exist, which is a good working description of very bad legislation.

Dear @@@@: Why would you be sorry that teachers are “competitively” compensated for the work they do? Should they not be?

Don't get me wrong. I was just responding to the previous inquiry that teachers are not paid as well as other professional occupations. This may be true in some districts. Yet if you include the benefit packages that they have negotiate then in ways their compensation can be very competitive to other professinals. But keep in mind I realize that this is not always the case. As for these bills (55 and 56) I haven't personaly made up my mind on them. I can see where they can benefit some districts as far as cost. But I don't like the idea of having another state bureaucracy deciding important issues as this. My gut feeling is leave to the local districts. Plus it is important to compensate good teacher well. What I don't approve of is that some weak instructors ride the coat tails of good ones, and get rewarded for it.

Why can't you then negotiate on the take home pay, vacation time, severence pay, disibility insurance, retirement funding. Their are still other negotiable items out there. But maybe not. I do admit. I have never been involved with these type contracts. I'm just trying to inform you of other options that you might have.

No one wants teachers who do not do their jobs. The truth is, there are not hoards of rotten teachers out there. Parents usually give their childrens' schools a high grade. Yet there is a public belief that schools are failing. Teachers have become the scapegoats for a public education system that is forced to function under tighter and tighter budgets while more and more state and federally mandated programs are passed by politicians who will not fund them. If we want to make a big difference in this system we need to lower class sizes especially in the inner city schools where the number of at-risk kids who need one-on-one attention is the greatest. What we don't need is to pay for more testing and data to show this need. Another thing to remember is that teachers pay taxes, too. We don't like to see big tax raises any more than anyone else.

I Totally agree with the comment titled Professionals at Risk

We have collectively bargained our benefits for years gving up money to keep benefits. Where does that leave us now? Can we bargain for another $10,000-$15,000 per year since we do not have to worry about benefits? Losing a collective bargaining right is a major stab in the back to teachers.

I thought Republicans were against socializing health care? Then why do they wish to force teachers into the government health care program? Also, when a contract is finished, agreed upon, and signed, it becomes rule. You don't just "open up" a contract whenever you feel like it to adjust what it says. You cannot legally do that in any other business sector so why is it ok to do that to teachers. I wonder if Senator Johnson would like it if we "opened up" all of the contracts and obligations she has signed onto in her personal life to meddle with them? I wouldn't think so. According to this, the GOP can save the State a lot of money if they socialize YOUR private health insurance as well. Get ready! The Republicans for Socialized Healthcare are on the march!

Teachers negotiate their health care as a "package" deal along with their salary, sick days, and other things. Some districts take tiny raises in favor of solid benefits. Taking away this right and allowing employers to change health benefits at any time they please is the same as changing one's contracted salary and should be considered a crime. Ask yourself this: Would ANY white-collar salaried professional accept allowing his employer to "open up" his contracted salary at ANY TIME to adjust his salary? NO! So why should teachers suffer this fate? Think about it.

I think that the most dangerous portion of this particular bill is the phrase "prohibit collective bargaining." There is a person who stated that we have other things to bargain for; severance pay (teachers get nothing currently when they are laid off, other than unemployment), vacation days (there is no such thing for a teacher; they can bargain their calendar, but they don't have the ability just to take a day off when they choose like other professions) and the like. I think that a big concern of some teachers is that they've already bargained quite a bit to keep their great health care. They're afraid that they already have lower salaries as a result, and they won't see a return in that bargaining now. They'll just have lost the good health care and have poor insurance, as well. But the most pressing concern is that phrase - "prohibit collective bargaining." It seems that this phrase could set a precedent by which the state could prohibit collective bargaining for other things, then other state jobs, and then, ultimately, for everyone everywhere forever. Isn't that a slippery slope?

with the passage of this bill comes the end of public schooling. Why not just send us all to charter schools? Anyone who thinks teachers don't deserve more than they get has their head in the sand.

how can state elected employees of the people, be for the people, when taking such simple approaches at a problem so wide spread. The focus cannot be narrow(minded). All must ease the burden, even our elected officials.

White-collared salaried professionals generally work at will. If your employer has no money, your benefits change – that’s if you get to keep your job. That’s the way it works for everyone else. Why not get your union to chip in some of your dues for your privileged benefit package instead of wasting money on fighting common sense approaches to equality in education. NCLB is a GRANT. Our state accepted the grant money and the terms of the grant. Because you weren’t able to meet the grant requirements now the big MEA is snapping at the federal hand that fed it. I am completely sick of hearing about 50 ways to fail under NCLB. It’s all about the special populations. Think about it: The special populations are still failing after 30 years. Explain that away and at the same time defend your perks. Every time any test comes out that says something is not so pretty in Michigan, it’s blamed on the test or the kids or we just change the way the scoring is done to make everything O.K. again. Then the employees (teachers) tell their employers (taxpayers) it’s their fault as parents. If it’s all the fault of the uneducated, illiterate bosses (parents), who taught them, your parents? Give me a break…you’d be out of a job in the white-collar professional world and your employer wouldn’t have to take you to court. Why should the kids in this state have to suffer such a fate? Think about it.

The kids that are suffering are the ones that get packed into classes of 29 or 30 because the government will not put money into education. Sure you could pay teachers a lot less, and take away their benefits but you are already losing many qualified teachers to other fields as it is. The bottom line: Most teachers are doing a fantastic job on a shoestring budget and sacrificing a lot of their own time and money for the good of their students. The school districts know that they have a valuable asset in their teaching staff and want to give them fair wages and good benefits. The parents of the students I teach give us high marks and see the success of their students. The government doesn't want to put more money in because it can't see any gain in revenue by doing that. Kids are a long term investment. The government won't put up more money so it blames the problems of underfunding on the teachers and their union. Its amazing that politicians can figure out how many more prisons they will need to house future inmates and can find money to build them but they can't see the value of putting more money into education to reduce class sizes , attract and retain quality teachers, and increase individual attention for the students that are at risk of filling those prisons some day. I want to keep teaching but if things deteriorate any further then I will have to look at doing something else to provide a decent living for my family and to keep from losing my mind.

rather than stick up for our kids most school boards have taken the easy way out and given the unions anything they want in order to get along. the fact is that most boards are made up of members who were endorsed by the very unions they bargin with.

where have the unions been in helping michigans economy? if pay and benefits were tied to value added then surely we wouldnt have the 4th highest paid teachers and the worst economy.

>where have the unions been in helping michigans economy? if pay and benefits were tied to value added then surely we wouldnt have the 4th highest paid teachers and the worst economy.< Attempting to make this connection is absurd. The private sector drives the Michigan economy, which increasingly is incapable of delivering attractive employment opportunities to state residents. At least our public school teachers continue to provide the service of educating our kids so they can escape the dead end employment situation in Michigan and earn decent livings elsewhere, in states that have not been let down by private enterprise. That’s a tremendous value.

The fact of the matter is ALL health costs are on the rise dramatically. MESSA is a non-profit organization whose books are "open" The problem, as I see it is the health care system at large. Not enough people have coverage, seek help only in the ER (where the costs are astronomical) and sue the $*#% out of any doctor and/or hospital who so much as misdiagnoses a paper-cut. Furthermore, if the State of Michigan REALLY thinks that it can save money by this rediculous stunt, they are mistaken. Cutting corners in this way will lead to overall poorer health of the public school employees, which in turn means more costs in substitues (teachers, bus drivers, etc...). The bottom line as I see it is that it comes to the bargaining table. The Unions (AFT / MEA) can negotiate thier positions with the individual school boards where thier membership is represented. MESSA has MANY different coverage options, and I am sure that if a particular local association were amenable, they could terminate thier use of the MESSA. There is a lot of discussion in this State about local control of Districts and the soverginty of the elected school board. A lot of people in my commutity are feverently in favor of Union Rights (ususally the UAW, where I live). Furthermore, I have NEVER IN MY LIFE heard anyone say that they wanted settle for second or third best when it came to thier health (or the health of thier family). These are fine ideals, I believe they represent some of the core democratic principles upon which this country was founded. I fail to understand why then, when it comes to "somebody else" or "those teachers" these glorious ideals cannot be upheld. All Americans have the right to union representation; within that union, the right to bargain, in good faith, for the betterment of all members. If the State Government wishes to solve its finnancial problems, it should look at REALISTIC long term solutions, and stop trying to put tiny band aids over the problems. These short sighted, short term solutions will only serve to hurt our State in the long run.

If you really think that the school boards give the unions what they want consider this: 1. Teschers cannot (legally) strike. 2. Teachers nor thier unions cannot really bargain thier contracts. Instead, they are most often forced to take a "best offer" from the school board, or work with out a contract (see #1). 3. Most board members are so detached from the schools and children they represent that they could not identify students that belong to the district (save for thier own children or friends) The best child advocate besides the parent is the teacher. To suggest that teachers do not have the right to bargain thier own contracts is to suggest they are somehow 2nd or 3rd class citizens, not entitled to full protection under labor laws. I am sure no one would openly suggest relagating this amount of classism on anyone.

You know, there is a way to bargin for your own "pay and benefits" like the rest of us. Michigan is a closed state, but you can still disolve you union by vote. You are professionals and in a very small class of professionals that choose to Unionize. You and your colleages place yourself in this position. Also, there are other ways that the MEA gets their point across; theatening letters to school board members, accidently leaving in paragraphs in the contract that were not agreed upon and calling it a "got-ya", picketing during board meetings, voting down building bonds to send a message, etc. You get the point. Your union and it bargining methods are not inhibited by the lack of being able to strike.

The private sector has to pay something called a SINGLE BUSINESS TAX. In this you get taxed more if you offer health insurance to your employees. Now public institutes dont have to do this. Is that fair. The Private Businesses of this state are what funds the local, state, and federal governments. Think about this, Michigan is ranked fourth in the nation on its pay to public school teachers. Now shouldn't our students be ranking in the top five for academics? Why arent they? I am payed for my performance at work. Why shouldn't our professional educators?

Did you mean "ludicrous"?" Ludacris is a rapper. You must be a teacher. Christopher Bridges (born September 11, 1977 in Champaign, Illinois), once known as Chris Lova Lova and best known as Ludacris, is an American rapper and actor. He eventually moved to Atlanta, where he would go on to make a name for himself as one of the most prominent Dirty South rappers of the new millennium.

Will the health insurance be the same that our legislature receives? It should make barging easer; it seems that that is the only thing that concerns superintendents these days, the cost of insurance.

Teachers security is considered a Frivlous Cost, and you wounder why quality teachers leave the profession?

Hmmm Should superintendents NOT worry about benefit costs.....seems like everyone else in the good old USA is worrying about them. Lets look at the facts: In most of forms of business salaries/benefits/retirment costs amount for over 80% of their total operating budgets. So would it not be prudent for someone to watch out for them...I cannot dictate to my employer what type of benefits I want...let alone who will be the carrier of said benefits. Anyone who does not want to contribute anything out of their pockets for the benefits is just plain out of touch with reality. I have nothing against teachers...matter of fact both of my siblings teach in Michigan. Given the average rate of premium increases over that past 10 years I think I would like a super to have a keen eye for budget management. Let's face it who can cut bussing or programs ..so you might save a whopping 20%. In my mind the state has to come up with a better way of financing education, amoung other things.

MESSA's may have their books open, however, districts cannot recieve any type of medical history or usage tables. For organizations, this data, (confidential of course) is used exclusively by benefits offices to look at trends in benefit usage or non usage. This assist the business better negotiate with the insurance carriers... So without this historical data it is virtually impossible to attempt to negotiate any type of premium reduction.