Michigan Votes Forum

 an incentive is a carrot and stick arrangement. your 'boost' is a whole bunch of carrots, why not offer the teachers to retire now, or face a future pay cut? you don't have to hit them with the stick, but just show it to them, and show them you will use it, like a jockey 'going to the whip' in the stretch.

gm negotiates contracts on a factory by factory basis. i'm sure you don't believe that workers in detroit get the same as the workers in the sheet metal plant in brazil, or the wiring harness plants in ohio, or the lighting fixture plants in mississippi. i could go on.

teachers negotiate with the local union and the local school authority, just like the 'big boys'. my point with all that was to ask why the union is remaining silent for this buyout, when the automaker's unions raised the roof for the gm buyouts.

i don't see how 'bumping' the retirement rate for an employee for as long as they shall live will be 'washed' by hiring an employee that will be getting a raise in a year or two.

 if offering a dis-incentive is age discrimination, so is offering an incentive.

how long will retiree's live? ten years? fifteen? twenty? thirty?

YOU WROTE EARLIER:  an incentive is a carrot and stick arrangement. your 'boost' is a whole bunch of carrots, why not offer the teachers to retire now, or face a future pay cut?

This is age discrimination.

Offering an incentive is one thing (it's "optional" to the employee)---------------being forced, as you age, to face a pay cut is age discrimination.

R1Lawrence:  Wait for the fiscal analysis ordered by the Senate Education Committee.  When the report says the incentive will save money-----------sorry, I'm going with their recommendation.  Not yours. 

If they say the incentive will cost the state money---------------I'll believe it.  They're in charge right now and they are the experts--not you and definately not me. 

3-17-09

Dear Valueplus,

I wrote "Morons!" as a single word sentence referring to the MEA whose members obviously taught you your English grammar.

The term also refers to the members of the legislative branches whose paychecks are assured by our tax dollars but lack the necessary requiste intelligence quotient to do the job they've been elected to accomplish.

Sincerely,

jmd364

P.S. Have a nice day!

I agree with you on that, but it does nothing to change the fact that MPSERS is in very bad shape, and the cost of bailing out MPSERS falls to the schools -- I don't see the state increasing funding to cope with the increasing requirements of funding the pension system. Over the last 7 years only once has the increase in foundation allowance offset the increased funding requirement of the pension contributions.  Each and every school district is in the same boat, that fact has not, and will not, change.

 if every employee is offered an incentive, then it's 'just' an incentive.  if only employees with over a certain amount of seniority, making a certain amount of pay, or within a certain amount of years to retirement, it's age discrimination.

 no, the courts don't have a problem with buyouts. nor do state governments. but the unions have in the past. what i said was that i don't see this as 'being a wash'. in other words, i don't see this coming close to saving money, as the retirement payments must go on for an indeterminate time, and the 'new hires' will be getting merit raises in a shorter amount of time. the more we pay in merit raises, the longer the payback period.

you don't have to be an economist to get this. you just have to look further ahead than one year. i am like you, and hoping that the experts will see the silver lining when they crunch the numbers, but i don't see it now.

as for the union, they are supposed to be there to protect their members from this very thing happening and advising all members for the mutual benefit of all members. but they have been silent. perhaps it is because the 'bad news' is coming from the people they elected, and to whom they lobby? 

This is no time to grant any increase in any golvernment expense can't you people relize that we need to increase JOBS  not taxes and freebees.

 I don't see the advantage of this bill.  All I see is an increase in costs by increasing pension payouts.  This doesn't create new teacher jobs, it only replaces one group of teachers with a different one, while hurting the overall economy by increasing taxes to pay for higher pension costs.

If we save money by replacing older teachers with younger ones (presuming equal ability & effectiveness), then just do that and leave the pension increase issue out of it.

MIKE HIGNITE said:   "I don't see the advantage of this bill."  and "all I see is an increase..."  Please read my posts.  You may not see it.  But, it doesn't matter if YOU don't see the advantage of it.  If the fiscal analysis of this bill, which is expected later this week, says that it WILL save money, then what you and I think won't matter because the bill will pass.

And, if the bill saves money, then WHY SHOULDN'T IT PASS?  And, no it may not "create" jobs, but it does GIVE jobs and thus lower unemployment to 15,000 people or so who do not now have jobs----------it gives jobs for those people who are not now presently working. 

So, if the state can give jobs to 15,000 people at LITTLE OR NO COST, then why SHOULDN'T it pass?  I'm amazed that people would be against that.  Absolutely amazed.  If you are against it, please write a letter to President Obama and Governor Granholm and tell them that you don't want any Federal Stimulus money for Michigan, your county, or your city.  No roads, no cars, no bridges, no hospitals, no schools, no whatever.  After all, all it's gonna do, according to you is "increase taxes to pay" for the stimulus.

 I am a teacher.  I am vested in the Michigan teacher retirement.  I oppose this bill.  I am not close to retirement--plan on working until I'm 65--love what I do.  I understand school finance well enough to know that unfunded acrued actuarial liability gets passed to districts that then pay a higher percentage of retirement costs out of operating costs (which is where teacher salaries come from after leaving the state coffers). 

Even the argument about schools going out of business is shaky.  Scools around the state are going out of business. An article in the Wall Street Journal (just two days ago) highlighted the financial plight of districts in the greater Detroit area due to declining enrollment (not the salary paid to older workers).  Bloomfield Hills was sited--not as being one of the best districts as in years past--but as a district in dire need of closing schools due to declining enrollment.

It seems that it would make more sense to spend all our time, energy and money looking for ways to bring jobs (and thus students) to our beautiful state.

Please stop the whining tone.

Why does everyone want to "get rid" of older workers?  Instead of cranking out the same ineffective policies that put people into retirement before their time (really--paying a retiree from age 48 to ?--just what is the life expectancy of a teacher now?), let's just think creatively about how to get more people and jobs into Michigan.

Another lesson from Delphi--they were cooking the books to make the legacy costs look--less costly. 

Certainly, that would never happen in our honest government. 

Teachers in Michigan do not get merit raises.  They get step increases.  By definition: a merit raise in education refers to a pay raise for a job well done--such as when students make academic gains.

SOLUTIONS: 

So what do MERIT RAISES have to do with anything we've been talking about here?  Where are MERIT RAISES mentioned in these posts? 

 SOLUTIONS:

A fiscal analysis ordered by the Senate Education Committee for the FIRST proposal of SB 255 was deemed VERY expensive.  The next analysis should be just as "honest" as the first one.   Do I detect some cynicism about our government? 

 SOLUTIONS:

YOU WROTE:   I understand school finance well enough to know that unfunded acrued actuarial liability gets passed to districts that then pay a higher percentage of retirement costs out of operating costs (which is where teacher salaries come from after leaving the state coffers). 

-----------------------------------

Are you saying the pension fund will be UNFUNDED?  Yes, if the fiscal analysis says the bill will COST money and not SAVE money, then the fund will be unfunded.  But, if the analysis says it will SAVE money, then the pension fund should be funded.  Let's wait for the Senate Education Committe's analysis to see what they say.

Just because you're an educator, doesn't mean you can tell if this bill will save or cost money.   You, like a lot of others can only guess.  I want this bill to pass.  But, I can't say that it will save money.  It "should" save money, but I'll go with whatever the fiscal analysis determines--not what YOU think.

Valueplus, it appears just by reading the text of this bill that it will cost taxpayers money, but after reading your post, I see your point of waiting for the committee's analysis. Sounds reasonable.

TO SOLUTIONS:

I agree.  Some schools ARE closing.  But, not too many school SYSTEMS are going out of business.  MY post you are referring to stated that exact same thing.  I stated that schools are indeed closing-----------not SCHOOL SYSTEMS.  And, that's an important distinction. 

If GM goes out of business, everyone working for GM is in big trouble.  But, although a minor/small school system will close (see other posting) and 12 or 14 jobs may be in jeapordy, Michigan schools will always be here.  Detroit, Birmingham, Bloomfield Hills may be in dire financial straights (like just about everyone else, it seems, from AIG to the corner grocery store), the SCHOOL SYSTEMS are not going to close in mass numbers.

One way to bring jobs (and thus students) as you say, to our beautiful state is to offer JOBS to 15,000 new and probably presently unemployed NEW teachers, who will work and spend their money in MICHIGAN.  There is nothing the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT will offer in their STIMULUS package that will put 15,000 people in Michigan to work almost immediately.  NOTHING.  This is the best idea on the table to stimulate JOBS IMMEDIATELY.

GYPSY--YOU WROTE: 

Valueplus, it appears just by reading the text of this bill that it will cost taxpayers money, but after reading your post, I see your point of waiting for the committee's analysis. Sounds reasonable.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thank you, thank you, thank you. 

That's all I've been asking MANY of the people who have been posting here.  They THINK it's going to cost money--------------and they just might be right.  But, if everyone waits for the fiscal analysis, we'll all know for sure.  

So many people ------------- so many closed minds.  I thank you for your common sense response.  Like I said, let's just wait.  If the analysis says this thing will cost $100 million, then forget about the bill.  It's toast.  It SHOULDN'T be passed.  And, I'll agree with everyone who is against it.  But, if the analysis says it does, indeed SAVE money, then let's get these 15,000 young people to work by passing this bill!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

 value plus,

It sounds like anyone who doesn't agree with you is "close-minded".

In general, pensions themselves are not fiscally sustainable over time.  It's just common sense.  Teachers union pensions, police union pensions, Social Security, etc...have proven themselves to be unsustainable.  Only by increasing the revenue (taxes from taxpayers), or reducing benefits can they be "propped up" & continue their relevance.   Regardless, when a bill like this is passed (pushed & supported by the teachers union no doubt) by our "leaders" it opens a door.....a door that will never be closed again.  A bill like this will not last "just one year".  It will be expanded, extended, perverted & applied to other sectors again & again.  I represents a gain for someone, but common sense dictates that it won't be the taxpayers. 

What about the teachers that will retire the year after this sweetener expires?  They'll claim it's unfair & through the union, they will make demands, file lawsuits & use any other means they have, to get their sweetener too.  Then what about other public sector unions?  They will demand the same too.  The history of human nature & the way our government conducts itself, has proven that this will be the case.  We can trust our "leaders" to do what's best for us?  I think not.  They receive "gifts" from the same entities that support bills like this.

We'll save money in the short run?  Perhaps.  But just to bring on more future pensioners will only cause this issue to perpetually repeat itself.  I don't argue your numbers, on the surface.  It's what lie's underneath that's really the truth.  Your numbers infer good faith & "trust" in our elected leaders to do what's best for "us".  That's nonsense.  You can see the proof of that every day.

So your argument at face value is valid, but reality dictates that we should not open this "door".  Your past postings appear to be sarcastic & a bit spiteful toward anyone who disagrees with your intellectual greatness. Which part of the teachers union do you work for?

Valueplus

UBER-Liberal (on 3/17) wrote:

 no, the courts don't have a problem with buyouts. nor do state governments. but the unions have in the past. what i said was that i don't see this as 'being a wash'. in other words, i don't see this coming close to saving money, as the retirement payments must go on for an indeterminate time, and the 'new hires' will be getting merit raises in a shorter amount of time. the more we pay in merit raises, the longer the payback period.

 Michigan teachers do not get merit raises.  In education merit raises refers to pay increases when academic gains etc. are made.

President Obama favors merit raises.  So do I.  As a teacher, I would be getting those wonderful merit raises because I am an excellent educator. 

Thanks for not whining.

 perhaps i should have said 'union negotiated unearned pay increases'.  

I found out today that the Fiscal Analysis was completed on March 16th.  Based on what I see in the report, it looks like the state WILL SAVE MONEY--------------------but for only 3 years.  After that, it appears the incentive will COST the state money.

I don't know what the Senate Education Committee is going to do now because I don't believe there will be enough votes to pass this measure----------especially since Granholm is against it.  Back to the drawing board for the Senate Education Committee.

That's been the problem all along, there may have been very short term savings but they are overwhelmed by the cost of providing not only the boosted benefits (be they at 2X or 1.5X) but having to amortize the existing (and growing) unfunded liabilities.  Remember, the pension fund carries over $30 BILLION (yes, billion) of unfunded liabilities.  To make matters worse, that number does not include the most recent $9.2 billion loss for 2008.

It does not matter which side of the political fence you find yourself on, the pension fund is in trouble and it's only going to get worse. Why? Because there are more teacher retiring than are coming into the profession. It's the same problem with Social Security (remember the baby boom).  The simple math of too many people drawing benefits supported by too few people (and in Michigan's case school districts) paying into the system.

The union, the pension system, and the state of Michigan is in serious denial about what must be done.  Make no mistake, the pure pension promise is constitutionally protected. It’s the health care promise that is not, and that’s where the biggest problem is centered, that part of the plan is $24 Billion underfunded.

 R1Lawrence:

Good Point:

The union, the pension system, and the state of Michigan is in serious denial about what must be done.  Make no mistake, the pure pension promise is constitutionally protected. It’s the health care promise that is not, and that’s where the biggest problem is centered, that part of the plan is $24 Billion underfunded.

And that's precisly why I am glad I like my job.  I will be working until age 65.

Running out before I get there--the story of my life.  When I was little and the neighbor lady passed out cookies, the cookies were always gone before my little legs could get there--baby boomers had them cleaned out.  True story

Do you realize how lucky you are to like your job?  I like my job better, much better now than I did 10 years ago.  Why?  I have a great boss----NOW. Ten years ago I had a boss nicknamed "light switch", we never knew what kind of mood he was going to be in.  One day on, and the next day off.  I was ready to retire then-----couldn't afford it and wasn't eligible. Now that I'm eligible, I like my job better than ever.  If I had the PREVIOUS boss NOW -----------I'd be LONG GONE. 

 Yes, I am lucky.  I work ina field where leaders have to treat the people who are working with students well.  In MI there is also a grievance process for teachers when there is an ineffective boss (sometimes misused).

Generally speaking, unions serve educators well.  However, the current economic structure, policy backing (such as SB 255), and lack of creative thought have led to fewer and fewer union members.  Unions in Denmark are forward thinking--don't seem to have ageist issues.

All people (regardless of age) deserve a job if they want one--particularly if they are hardworking.

This bill had a tendancy to paint those older workers as greedy and ready for the pasture.  And as most MEA policies, it did little for people like me who won't have these "great", publicly subsidized retirement options--the healthcare portion will be gone.  The union has become too rigid in thinking and structure.  It became so good at bargaining, it forgot about the future.

How does MI change current policy to create more jobs, better infrastructure (really--the roads and buildings look worn out in most places), and hope for a better future?

It will take 100% creativity, a great deal of energy and thought, and a lot of work.

valueplus:

I'm amazed that people would be against that.  Absolutely amazed.  If you are against it, please write a letter to President Obama and Governor Granholm and tell them that you don't want any Federal Stimulus money for Michigan, your county, or your city.  No roads, no cars, no bridges, no hospitals, no schools, no whatever.  After all, all it's gonna do, according to you is "increase taxes to pay" for the stimulus.

 I have done so.  I don't want any federal stimulus money, because it will not work.  Without federal stimulus money we won't have roads, or schools, etc?  What about existing taxes?  What are they for?  If they didn't work, why should the stimulus? 

Yes, all the stimulus will do is increase taxes.  You've fallen for the "forgotten man" fallacy.    Bob thinks Tom needs schools and ta kes the money from Steve to build them.  Tom is happy.  Bob is happy.  All you have to do is ignore Steve and the stimulus works fine.

valueplus:

And, no it may not "create" jobs, but it does GIVE jobs and thus lower unemployment to 15,000 people or so who do not now have jobs----------it gives jobs for those people who are not now presently working. 

 What are you trying to say?  It doesn't create jobs, but it Gives jobs.  What does that even mean?    I can end unemployment tomorrow.  I will hire 15,000 people to pull my car to work.  I'm happy to give them the $30 a week I would have spent on gas to split as they see fit.  Not only does this eliminate unemployment, it's a green solution to the energy problem.  How can anyone be against that?  I'm amazed that anyone could be against that.  Absolutely amazed. 

Where do you think these magic jobs are?  Locked in a cabinet in Granholm's Lansing office? 

 SOLUTIONS wrote:  ... (really--the roads and buildings look worn out in most places), and hope for a better future?

Mike Hignite seems willing to pay 15,000 people to pull his car to work.  Maybe he'll pay for the roads, buildings, schools, prisons, hospitals, and government buildings, too.  

$30 to have his car pulled to work and another $30 to pay for the road it's pulled on.  :-)

 all those things are already paid for, and then some.

 I always find it amusing that anytime teachers may get something there is always a public outcry.  No one said anything when state employees got an incentive.  Young teachers need jobs without this bill I won't retire and my friends all said they will just hang on for 5 more years.  The sad thing is to dangle a carrot for people and then just pull it back.  If it was impossible to begin with why bring it up?  As usual politicians are all talk and no action an you wonder why Americans become so upset with the whole system. Young kids are spending $70,000 to get an education for what there are no jobs in Michigan!!  Hopefully, Granholm will offer some incentive so our young people won't leave.

Ipmmb22:

It’s not a teacher thing, the fact is that the MEA is trying to get something for their members but they either refuse, miss, don’t care to contemplate the long term costs. To complicate matters most legislators couldn’t balance their own checkbooks much less contemplate the complexities of actuarial assumptions, investment return criteria, and declining demographic trends.  Financial expertise is sorely lacking in Lansing, and it’s easy to sell a bill of goods to legislators that can’t ask the right questions.

As for jobs, Granholm can’t create real jobs -- she can only encourage the legislature to make conditions favorable for job creation.  Those conditions are a foreign concept in this state.

 lpmmb22

"without this bill I won't retire and my friends all said they will just hang on for 5 more years"

Is that right?........."just hang on for 5 more years"  You epitomize the reason that most taxpayers no longer support increased expenditures for teachers packages & have a negative impression of the MEA in general.

The proposal was advanced by the MEA.   You ask: "If it was impossible to begin with why bring it up?"  Well, ask the MEA.  If the majority of taxpayers are against it & contact their legislators, it will fail.  It's that simple.  That's how the system works......I'm sure you already know that.  Sorry, but you sound a bit whiney.

You sound like your job just is such a bother.  What about teaching our young people & preparing them for the future?  What about the dedication?  What about the love of teaching & preparing students for a productive future?  World-class students?  You & your "friends" sound exactly like the kind of teachers we need to get out of the classroom.  For the sake of our children's educational quality, I would personally like to pay you to leave the system.  However, sweetening your sweet deal (in addition to your benefits for life) through the legislative process, WILL cost more down the road for the rest of us.  After we retire, most of us won't be sitting on a fat Gov. pension with C.O.L. increases.  The future tax increases needed to support this bloated system will be more of a burden to us than you.  Asking us to pay more now, only to pay even more later, is ludicrous. 

What kind of "product" has been delivered by the MEA over the last 30+ years?  Producing under-achieving students that trail the rest of the industrial world?  More days off from school...more half days....more "reading days"......more "pajama days"....higher salaries.......higher pensions.....more paid time off........Citizens are tired of it.

 vipster wrote: 

"What kind of "product" has been delivered by the MEA over the last 30+ years?  Producing under-achieving students that trail the rest of the industrial world?  More days off from school...more half days....more "reading days"......more "pajama days"....higher salaries.......higher pensions.....more paid time off........Citizens are tired of it."

I remember being at a family gathering in the early sixties with my uncles and my dad saying the exact same thing you said here.  But, they were talking about the inferior education of the 50's and 60's.   So, that means the quality of education in the 50's and 60's was bad, too.  The oldest uncle (by far) said his dad used to sit around and say the samething about schools in the 30's and 40's.  Now, everyone says the same thing about the last thirty years.  Were schools EVER good in the United States?  If so, when?

Each older generation has said the same thing about the previous 30 years.  And, every generation says, "Yeah.  But, it's really worse now!"

If lpmmb22 "needs to be out of the classroom" as you say, then the stimulus would have done just that.  New, younger educators with new, fresh ideas would have replaced the oldsters.  Now, sadly, the oldsters, will still be teaching your children.  By th way yous guys, if yous cn reed this, thnk a teecher.  I know, I know.  No teacher taught you how to read.  It was your mom.