Michigan Votes Forum

Introduced in the House on January 31, 2012

Click here to view bill details.

 Make that available for people whose income was below 60/year including benefits. Those are the people who may need help, not those earning $90.000. Why are we wanting to increase our liabilities anyway. Isn't the state and it's taxpayers burdened enough?

 The idea is to SAVE money for the state, which this ultimately would do. It would also lessen the effects of the "brain drain," as young teachers leave the state for greener pastures. It is just a little push for the experienced teachers to leave the profession with some dignity.

 And who is going to furnish the money for these increased pensions? You're worried about experienced teachers leaving with dignity? That's the sorriest excuse I've heard for increased pensions. Won't the bad teachers retire with the same "dignity" pay in their pensions? Not hard to tell where you're coming from. How soon after this is passed do you intend to retire?

This doesn't sound like a money saver!

 this “early out” bonus would increase the system’s unfunded liabilities, while simultaneously adding a new cohort of future retirees who would further increase the system’s (and taxpayers’) liabilities going forward.

 

If I were to retire under this plan, it would earn me about $1,900 more per year in my pension.  The teacher that they would hire to replace me would cost the state about $30,000 less than I'm being paid.  That's a pretty substantial $28,000 per year savings. 

The money to pay for this small addition to my pension will come from the new teacher whom they hire to take my place, just like I paid toward the retirement of the teacher who came before me.  Had past politicians not "borrowed" from the pension fund over the years to pay for other services that the voters demanded, the interest on the pension fund alone would've probably covered the full amount of this now "unfunded liability".

Of course, these finacial savings for the State have a cost that few bother to realize.  In saving that $28,000, the families in the Sate of Michigan will each year lose the huge benefit of my 25+ years of experience as well as the expertise that my Masters degree along with the additional 30+ university credits beyond that gives me in the classroom.  The new teacher will not have these advantages to help make them as effective a teacher as I currently am.  But it's obvious that the majority of people in Michigan are concerned only with cheap education, not good education.

 This person in  Michigan also sees that you did not include  the cost of paying your pension from an unfunded source in your calculations of "savings?. Where is the increase going to come from and what will your TOTAL pension and benefits package amount to and how does that compare with other union members employed by the State of Michigan. Won't we have to pay for the benefits of your replacement in addition to your benefits?

You have been part of a system where getting additional degrees or credits resulted in a pay increase but your performance was not evaluated except by others of your mutual admiration society. You were protected by tenure. Very few people have that luxury. How many teachers have been fired for incompetence in the State of Michigan. Where is the accountability?

Sorry. I thought, based on the comment of yours that I replied to, that you only wanted to know where the INCREASE in my pension would pay off.  As I explained, that money would come many times over from the lower salary paid to the less experienced and less educated teacher that they would hire to replace me.

As for my total pension relative to the average union member's, anyone who truly values education would hope that a teacher's pension (and working compensation package) would be better than the average Joe's considering the fact that the average State employee hasn't spent tens of thousands of dollars and tens of thousands of hours and foregone tens of thousands of dollars in income attending college to become talented and knowledgeable enough to educate thirty-some kids at one time who come from all parts of the socioeconomic, familial, and motivational spectrum.  Without greater rewards, those motivated and intelligent enough to sacrifice this time and money on a higher education will choose to work in more lucrative fields, and our children will be educated only by people who aren't driven and intelligent enough to find work elsewhere.  The educational role models to whom we entrust our kids every day will be the least educated members of society.  But again, if cheap education is all we want here in Michigan, then paying teachers no more than the average Joe is certainly the way to go.

As for the benefit costs to both me and my replacement, remember that the proposed incentive would apply only to those who would otherwise retire within the next few years anyway.  The savings in salary as explained in my earlier post would easily more than cover my lesser benefit costs in each of the first few years of my retirement.  After those years, I would've entered the retirement system anyway, so the benefit costs to the State would be the same after that, but the salary savings explained earlier would continue to be reaped for several years thereafter.  It's a financial investment by the State that keeps on giving each year. 

Tenure has been one of the best tools teachers have had to help children get the education that they deserve.  Its intent has always been to enable teachers to (1) stand up for children, (2) speak up when immoral school leaders utilize funds in an inappropriate/illegal manner, and/or (3) act as advocates for proper funding of education in Michigan without the fear of losing his or her job.  Without tenure, you're taking away the power of your best educational watchdogs which will open the door for serious abuses of the system.

Who (and how much) would you be willing to pay to evaluate my performance, and what criteria will they use to determine the quality of my performance?  If few teachers have been fired for incompetence, maybe it has to do with the fact that Michigan citizens have overwhelmed their school administrators with unreasonable mandates to the point that they haven't got the time to document such incompetence in order to build a decent case for dismissal.  The ultimate accountability lies with each and every Michigan citizen, but by muzzling our best advocates for children, we're only deluding ourselves into thinking that we're improving their education.

 How typical of a liberal union member. You won't give the total package information, will you. It's been like trying to get information from the Obama administration. Maybe if you would answer the question, it would be easier to see why you need a raise.

As far as comparing your wage to other union members, they don't have summers off and the job security of teachers. They are also judged by their ability to perform certain tasks and cannot hide behind tenure. I notice you are against being evaluated, yet you claim to be such an asset. On what basis are you making that claim?  Why are American school children so far behind other nations that spend far less per pupil.

You also stated that "without greater rewards, those motivated and intelligent enough to sacrifice this time and money will choose to work in more lucrative fields". So just how dedicated and motivated are those that choose other fields because of the money?  Two teachers were hired into the power plant I worked for. I had the "opportunity" to work with both of them. They said they wanted to go "where the real money was". They were worthless. They seemed to be surprised that power plants operate 24/7/365 and they might be required to work rotating shifts, weekends, holidays, in a hot noisy environment and thought they were entitled to an air conditioned office etc. One of them was an english teacher who tried convincing management that his job should be reviewing procedures, memos, etc and correcting punctuation. Neither one got past their probationary period and went back to teaching.

As far as incompetent teachers not being fired-------- It's because it would cost more to fire them than to keep them and give them some other duty-or just let them hang out in a rubber room with full pay until they retire. Now don't tell me you don't know about "rubber rooms. Tenure also entrenches incompetent teachers in the school system. Your remarks about not being able to be evaluated and not being fired for incompetence was cute. How can they, when teachers don't want to be held to a standard?

I do agree that the ultimate accountability lies with the citizens. That's why so many choose charter schools, and why the the teachers and their unions are against charter schools. Their competence may be evaluated and they might be held accountable----and fired rather than retired.

 

For a union member, I’m actually quite conservative.  Neither liberals nor conservs are perfectly right.  So, if you want to label me, I’d prefer to be called a “Realist”.  My pension, like those of all public employees is, and always has been, a matter of public record.  Feel free to access it, or just use the numbers I gave already and a little algebra to figure it out.  I didn’t say I needed a raise.

It’s always convenient for anti-teacher folks to neglect the reality that teachers are required to take (and pay for from their after-tax salaries) summer classes from the time they graduate until they retire.  Again, what job security there is a by-product of tenure laws that enable teachers to be our children’s advocates.  I don’t know where exactly you noticed that I’m against being evaluated.  I’ve been, and continue to be evaluated on a regular basis since I began teaching, and I don’t mind it.  Besides the high MEAP scores earned by my students, very good evaluations, and admiration and respect from my students, the compliments I regularly receive from parents (your #1 criterion, I assume) are what I base my claim on.  It appears that the main reason why some countries perform better on standardized tests (which only assess one aspect of intelligence, by the way) is because those countries have a culture that values education in practice and not just words like our culture does.  Until we adults change that, no matter what changes we make to schools and teacher working conditions, student performance will not change.

Those dedicated people who choose lines of work other than teaching are probably very dedicated to their other employer.  A person doesn’t have to be poor to be dedicated.  Your anecdote illustrates my point perfectly.  A school district near you got rid of a bad teacher.  Your company hired/fired him and hired a better worker.  Since the better worker was employed by the better-paying organization, the poor-paying district had no choice but to hire back the bad worker.  And then people like you blame all teachers for the educational shortcomings of our culture so they don’t have to accept that it’s their own (under)funding policies that caused the problem.

I honestly have never heard the term “rubber room” in reference to harboring an employee until retirement, and I couldn’t make sense of the last few sentences, so I can’t comment on this aspect of your comments.

The standardized test scores (which this country seems to consider the end-all-be-all of determining intelligence and school effectiveness) of charter schools, who pick and choose their students, are no higher than the scores earned by public schools who have to accept all students.  Therefore, using your argument, non-unionized teachers in charter schools are no better (if not worse) at educating kids than unionized teachers.

By the way, I’ve noticed that you changed the subject of this discussion.  I find that that happens all the time when I introduce real facts and logic into the discourse of these comment sections.  It’s as if the anti-teacher folks are frantically fishing for any sound argument that they can use to affirm and legitimize their deep-seated (albeit wrong) belief that all unionized teachers are bad for society.  If you’d like to get back to discussing the financial aspect of the proposed retirement incentive, I’d be happy to join you.  But otherwise, with all of the school board meetings and school improvement meetings that I have to prepare for and attend, practices and games that I have to coach, tests and assignments that I have to correct, college homework of my own that I have to finish, professional development to complete, parent phone calls to make, class science demonstrations to plan and set up, and state forms to fill out, I really don’t have the luxury of time to go fishing.  My bottom line is still: “You get what you pay for.  Compensate educators poorly, and your kids get a cheap education; compensate them well, and your kids get a good education.  Michigan has to choose between the two and live with the results.”

 

 Thank you so much for expressing so eloquently what I wish I had the time to write originally. Unfortunately, I have so little time to participate, as I am busy grading student essays, or planning new lessons or just trying to keep up with all the new requirements for curriculum when I am not in the classroom. I hope others have time to join the discussion.

Teacher retirement incentives were used by John Engler in 2002 and Jennifer Granholm in 2009 to save millions of dollars for the State of Michigan.  The 2009 incentive was projected to save the state $3 billion over ten years.  These incentives also give our school districts new found flexibility in managing their budgets.

It's interesting that big corporations like GM routinely use retirement incentives to shed high-priced personnel, and there is usually no question that doing so will be a benefit to the corporation, yet when a government entity uses the same strategy people like allbaby2 express derision and refuse to believe the fiscal reality of the matter.  You really have to conclude that they have some sort of personal ax to grind.

So why the animosity towards people making over $60K a year ab2?  I'm guessing that's your salary, and your motive for being so pessimistic is resentment that some teachers make more than you.  Some people feel lifted up by bringing other people down.

True. That's why I'm hearing more and more studies about teachers that go online. Teaching online is a new hot topic and it's increasing from year to year. Would like to see where will this go in the next 10-20 years.

 Using your definition, those payments retirees from government etc. that recieve cost of living increases are not pensions because they are not fixed sums. Many execs pensions are bought out and they recieve a severance package vs a pension, I recieved a pension and a severance package but my pension has not been increased in 16 years. My company cannot tax the public to pay for my retirement. As a matter of fact,they no longer offer a defined benefit retirement package.

 Really, light-house?  I picked the sum just as an decent livabale wage. How many of these executives recieved annual increases based on years of service and not on merit? Executives are promoted/demoted based on performance. How many teachers have been fired due to incompetence? Executives can't carry their retirement from job to job. Want more comparisons? I can give them

As far as my wages, I made over 80K when I retired 16 years ago. My performance was subject to an annual review and I was an "at will" employee. I had to pay for my health insurance and contribute toward my pension.  Teachers want to retire and double dip in the system with the wages contributing to their retirement. Tell me how many other people, other than government employees can do that.

 The people of Michigan are paying top dollar but a lot of our kids are getting a cheap education. Where does Michigan stand in those categories. Oh, wait!  There are a hundred or more reasons (excuses) why test scores cannot be compared, all of them relieving teachers of any responsibility.

 Why is it necessary to increase the pension percentage payout?  I don't want to take away pension benefits to which teachers have already accepted, but I see no reason to increase them.

Everyone will benefit by moving from a defined benefit program to a 403(b) style program.  The risk and volatility of retirement costs are moved to those who benefit, not on the public.  Financial statements costs and borrowing costs are less and result in better budgeting for costs.  If teachers are not moved to a 403(b) plan similar to the rest of state employees, they should be.

I think building an equitable system for our human resources will benefit everyone. I see this as one of the key points for a evolved society.

First, if a retirement program is pre-funded (as Michigan's used to be), there's very little risk or volatility and, consequently, budgeting becomes easier.  However, since we squandered all of that money back in the 90's, our poor fiscal decision back then has left our state at the mercy of the market.  Now some people have convinced you and many others that not investing in our children is the best way to solve that problem.  This "solution" sounds good because it sounds like we don't have to pay for our past mistake(s).  Unfortunately, we will ultimately have to pay for our spending spree at some time, and the longer we put it off, the higher the cost will be.

Having said that, I disagree with you, Mike, that everyone will benefit by moving our teachers from defined benefit plan to a 403(b) plan.  Since a 403(b)-type program is more risky and volatile, it's less desirable to potential employees than a pre-funded DB program would be.  In addition, the people of the State of Michigan will have earned a reputation as being untrustworthy employers after reneging on promises that they made to their current teachers. Therefore, down the road many highly-qualified and competent potential teachers will choose employment in more lucrative fields and with employers who haven't proven themselves to be liars, leaving only those who can't get jobs elsewhere as our children's educators and role models.  Who in MI benefits from this?

So then at that time to encourage quality individuals to enter the teaching profession, we'll have to either improve the relative compensation/benefit/retirement package to something like we have today or reduce the training/education requirements to next to nothing (or probably both).  So in the final analysis, we'll be back to where we're giving teachers a reasonable pension, but a whole generation of kids will have received a cheap (bad) education.  So in fact, no one benefits from moving teachers to 403(b) pensions (except the investment planners who'll take their cut every month regardless of the economy).

So please understand that the pre-funded defined benefit pension program that was in place when I agreed to become a teacher in Michigan is a relatively inexpensive and safe way to attract better-qualified individuals into our classrooms.  Not only should it not be taken out from under me as I'm about to retire, but the pre-funded moneys should be repaid and a constitutional amendment should make it untouchable by legislators so that we don't keep making the same mistake over and over.

My point in advocating a 403(b) plan over a defined benefit plan is to decrease volatility in reporting.  Even if the expected payout is the same, a 403(b) is better financially.  A pension requires actuarial assumptions about, life expectancy, continued employment, return on investment, inflation rates, etc.  This requires paying an actuary.  A state then pays in enough to cover what it guess it may owe in the future.  Current law allows the state to underfund that liability.  Your money is at legislative risk, which is why we are having this discussion.

A 403(b) plan let's the state pay an amount and record it without any actuarial assumptions.  It saves actuary expense.  You get the payment into your account today, so you aren't subject to underfunding risks.   

From the teacher's side, you will (hopefully) be paid a pension, if it is funded by the state.  It will be a fixed amount.  If inflation is excessive, too bad for you, you were promised $2400 a month and that's what you get and you'll have to make do.

With a 403(b) plan, you have the upside and downside risk.  If you invest prudently, you should be able to match inflation and receive correspondingly more than $2400.  From the teacher's viewpoint, I'd much rather be in control of my retirement investments than have the state treasurer do it.   

Now the best approach is to not have any pension at all.  If employees were simply paid the amount of benefits in salary, you could make your own decisions free from the risk of pensions not being paid, underfunded, companies going out of business, etc.

Some may say that they don't trust teachers to manage those funds themselves.  I say if you can be responsibile for the education of our kids, you can be responsible enough to plan for your retirement. 

This may reflect the early nature of the DOF projection, or minor differences in state agency payroll, the average state contribution rate, or both. In any case, this may slightly overstate estimated funding shortfalls that result from increased pension expenditures in each of the CalPERS contribution cases below. http://jogos-de-habilidade.org/ jogos de cozinhar

 

Again, we’ve gotten away from the initial point of this thread, but it’s interesting and respectful, so I’ll go with it.  As for whether or not the 403(b) plan is “better” than a DB is in the eye of the beholder.  Those who are comfortable with risk would agree.  Those who are more fiscally conservative (as are most who tend to enter the teaching field) wouldn’t – they’d rather have a known amount.  Although it may not be as high as a private investment MIGHT be, they don’t risk having an amount that is equally likely to be LOWER.

Until today, a State pension was considered a reliable investment.  That reliability had value beyond just the dollar amount, and that added value was part of what encouraged well-educated and driven people to enter the teaching profession in Michigan.  If you take away the reliable investment from a teacher’s compensation package (as you say is the very best way to go), you’ll have to increase salaries more than just the dollar value that the pension was worth, but also the “reliability value” in order to attract the same caliber of individual into the profession.  Otherwise, if a person has to take on the same amount of retirement risk in all professions, the best-educated and driven people will understandably tend to forego the low salaries we pay our teachers and choose a higher paying field. 

The formerly reliable State pension was a relatively inexpensive way to attract quality people to help raise our children.  Doing away with it will certainly make “the State’s” job easier.  If making our politicians' jobs easier is our main goal, then doing away with pensions is the way to go.  But recklessly spending the pre-funding that supported it and then using the fact that it’s an unfunded liability as the excuse to renege on promises made or to get rid of it entirely will, for years to come, continue to reduce the quality of employees who will agree to care for our kids. 

 

So what you are saying is that college grads straight are entering the teaching profession for retirement puposes?  I thought they were all about kids. Really, how many other retirees are guaranteed  inflation based raises, super low medical, dental and vision plans? I can see why some of them wanted on board the gravy train.

I had two teachers that worked under my direction at a power plant because they wanted to go where the "real money" was. Both of them left under duress before their probationary period was up.

I think that the key word is certain because not all people who work in schools deserve a better salary or a better pension but a very big part of them they do. My uncle works in a school and he has sent an Invoice Template to the firm who is responsable with his pension and they told him that in a few months he will sense that increase. I must say that this is a great news for those who work in the educational system.

 Aw, c'mon. You know "certain" will morph into "all" by the next election cycle. Teachers will snivel that they are not loved and politicians will use your money to buy their affection-and votes.

This is what I was looking for. Thanks for sharing this great article! This is very interesting smile I love reading this informative information I was looking for! proposal for phd research

The benefits hike would be 6.7 percent for the first group, and 3.3 percent for the second this is awesome the government is really doing a good job on this. buy soundcloud bot soundcloud followers buy