Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: A few tiny cracks appear
Posted in:
* Umm… Huh?…
The [Chicago Teachers Union deemed] Rauner’s call for teachers to pay into their pensions “morally reprehensible.”
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 8:59 am
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: SUBSCRIBERS ONLY - Supplement to today’s edition
Next Post: A few tiny cracks appear
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Hmmm…the only thing morally reprehensible about that is them saying it! It’s certainly common sense that each of us need to have skin in the game when it comes to financing pensions…so should they.
Comment by Captain Illini Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:04 am
Rauner wins!
Comment by old-pol Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:06 am
This particular quote appears to have been taken out of context:
http://www.ctunet.com/media/press-releases/ctu-to-governor-mayor-put-away-your-knives-and-stop-attacking-teachers-and-public-employees
Comment by Hamnlet's Ghost Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:06 am
Nothing says “losing the battle” quite like that. It always stinks when the people you want to see succeed be so needlessly ignorant.
Comment by Ducky LaMoore Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:08 am
Morally reprehensible is the “entitlement mentality” the left has drummed into the heads of people. Enough already!
Comment by Nobody important Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:08 am
Good grief!
Comment by Sunshine Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:10 am
This is exactly what people outside of this system perceive the situation to be; Entitlement at the highest level. It’s not new, but the acknowledgement of it in such clear terms confirms those perceptions.
Ouch.
Comment by A guy Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:12 am
I expect better Sun-Times. If I were the CTU, I would be screaming for a retraction.
Full Quote:
“The CTU will not stand still as these politicians attempt to balance their budgets on the backs of teachers and their families. This is morally reprehensible because they’ve already subjected workers to reductions in pay, decreases in retirement security, ballooning class sizes, sweeping layoffs and work overloads. Now they want to renege on our deferred compensation agreement while they continue to gamble with taxpayer dollars in risky swap deals.
Comment by Dee Lay Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:13 am
Hamnlet’s Ghost has a point. This is from the CTU release:
“‘The CTU will not stand still as these politicians attempt to balance their budgets on the backs of teachers and their families. This is morally reprehensible because they’ve already subjected workers to reductions in pay, decreases in retirement security, ballooning class sizes, sweeping layoffs and work overloads. Now they want to renege on our deferred compensation agreement while they continue to gamble with taxpayer dollars in risky swap deals.’”
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:14 am
That “skin in the game” argument is ridiculous. Those who have already worked the hours for a promised future benefit have been “skinned.” Trying to weasel out of paying pensions would be trying to have no skin in the game.
Comment by Cold Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:14 am
@Norseman
The next paragraph is even better:
“Not one of these leaders has the courage to confront the wealthy untouchables or admonish the mayor’s handpicked school board full of bankers, charter boosters and political apologists who set the stage for the current financial crisis. They talk about holding teachers accountable; who holds them accountable for their disastrous fiscal decisions?”
Comment by Hamnlet's Ghost Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:16 am
What is morally reprehensible is that for decades, including the present day, Democrats have been mismanaging Chicago’s finances and none of them will ever face criminal penalties for doing so. We complain about the titans of finances rarely going to jail for financial crimes, but should politicians get a pass.
Comment by Cassandra Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:17 am
What a bunch of blithering nonsense.
Chicago teachers are required by law to pay into their pensions, but 2/3s of them have been given an additional benefit - a “pick-up” for that amount. Not all Chicago teachers get this.
This benefit is negotiable. By law, Chicago teachers pay into their pensions.
Once again, Rauner is just flat out wrong, and in his mistake, exposes himself as a man incapable of speaking moderately, carefully and honestly. He is either willfully ignorant, or dishonest.
What is the purpose of spreading this lie? Why should a near-Billionaire governor feel a need to attack any teacher barely earning enough to pay their bills? He is making Scrooge look like a bleeding heart.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:17 am
The Sun Times is morally reprehensible for changing the context of the quote.
Comment by A Jack Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:18 am
Both Chicago editorial boards are pretty well compromised when it comes to the governor. They’re writing their conclusions first, and snatching snippets to support it later. Sad.
Comment by Elo Kiddies Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:18 am
==Morally reprehensible is the “entitlement mentality” the left has drummed into the heads of people. Enough already!==
Indeed. Enough already of your goofy comments. The hyper partisan comments some of you make are laughable. Offer something useful to the conversation or go away.
To the post . . .
Sometimes I just have to shake my head and the absurdity of things that are said. The unions need some big PR help. What a ridiculous thing to say. The public just laughs at comments like that, and they should.
Comment by Demoralized Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:20 am
Books shape our lives. Question: If Gov. Rauner were to list his favorite authors, would Ayn Rand to the list?
Comment by Books Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:20 am
Typo. “To the list” should be “top the list.”
Comment by Books Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:21 am
@vanillaman Principal Gray on Twitter is complaining to pay his family’s full pension share would mean $13k increase. That means he and his wife are making $200k. Cry me a river. CPS teachers earn on average over $70k annually. Pay your share.
Comment by jeffinginChicago Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:22 am
Pro-Raunerites?
You better go beyond the above quote before you start ladling on your BS about lefty entitlements and other anti-union nonsense. This isn’t what it appears to be.
The CTU didn’t “deem” this.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:22 am
And these people are teaching Chicago’s children.
Can’t wait to see what 2030s Chicago is like.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:23 am
VM correctly points out correctly that media reports are not always accurate. That said, the pick up should most likely end during a time of fiscal crisis. Everyone needs to be part of the solution.
Comment by illlinifan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:25 am
Saying you want to reduce teachers pay doesn’t poll well. If your Rauner or Rahm, this is much better way to go. That’s all this amounts to is a reduction in take home pay for teachers.
Comment by Corporate Thug Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:26 am
I would like some government entity to completely fund MY retirement while I work 9 months per year. Geesh. Oh, and note to our brainiac political leaders: Nobody is impressed with the hit-piece mailers and t.v. ads. Start playing nice or your mother is going to smack you!
Comment by Nobody U. Know Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:28 am
Using “morally reprehensible” shows the CTU has a tin ear. By saying stuff like that, they’re helping Rauner.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:29 am
===This particular quote appears to have been taken out of context===
I don’t think so. The topic of the day was teacher pension payments.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:30 am
CPS teachers earn on average over $70k annually.
If you cannot possibly empathize with a Chicago teacher earning $70,000 and then getting sent a $7000 bill - you are one heartless individual.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:30 am
To take a quote out of context like that is extremely poor journalism. Unfortunately, it is what we’ve come to expect from most modern news sources. Who knew that The Onion was going to be such a trendsetter in American journalism?
Somewhat unrelated to the topic at hand, there is this interesting statement in the article about the mandatory arbitration for state employees bill:
“Madigan said he plans to call the bill next week and has the support to override Rauner’s veto.”
That would be a huge victory for AFSCME.
Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:30 am
CTU members who get nearly 80% of the employee share picked up by their employer, as well as all of the employer share picked up by the employer, are not likely to gain much sympathy from the public during these times, regardless of the quote out of context by the S-T. Just sayin’.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:31 am
If the CTU wants pensions to be around for years to come, they need to start paying more into their pensions. 9% is the not much when it comes to long term financial payouts. Yes i didnt use the work stability. Everyone has variable cost from rent, mortgage, healthcare, food, Rx and a list of other expenses. In Chicago we cant evaluate the teachers, but we are expected to make sure the ones that are sub-par are being taken care of in retirement.
Comment by Chicago (d) Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:33 am
“I don’t think so. The topic of the day was teacher pension payments.”
Even if the topic was pension payments, the remainder of the quote is still very important when it comes to characterizing what the CTU considered morally reprehensible.
Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:34 am
Like most all other Govt. Employee Unions, their leadership failed them for allowing “pension holidays” year after year after year that now has left them in this spot. Sorry, reality can suck!
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:36 am
I went from 0% to 8.5% so its not unreasonable to ask for teacher contributions. Whats killing TRS is the 6% raises in the last four years
Comment by foster brooks Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:37 am
===“The CTU will not stand still as these politicians attempt to balance their budgets on the backs of teachers and their families.=== and
===Gov. Rauner and Mayor Emanuel should declare a commitment to a progressive income tax, closing corporate loopholes and a tax on financial transactions that would immediately put Chicago Public Schools, City of Chicago and the State of Illinois into a surplus situation.===
It appears the CTU wishes what some people might characterizes as an attempt to balance the budgets on the backs of the taxpayers. Rauner has stated in the past that “Everywhere Illinois families turn, they are crushed by taxes.” I cannot see Rauner being a supporter of the CTU proposal.
Comment by Hit or Miss Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:40 am
Even if the topic was pension payments, the remainder of the quote is still very important when it comes to characterizing what the CTU considered morally reprehensible.
I agree that the inclusion of the remainder of the quote gives more context to the CTU argument. Upon re-reading it a few times, and knowing that many CTU members are only paying 2% of their paycheck into the pension fund and that they consider paying any additional amount of the 9% “employee share” in order to stabilize the fund to be “morally reprehensible”, still is hard to defend on the public stage.
Comment by Six Degrees of Separation Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:40 am
It represents an 8% salary cut, if teachers start paying their full contribution. Bad PR, but it is what it is. In my district, we contribute the full amount, while earning quite a bit less than Chicago teachers. I don’t feel sorry for them, but Rauner’s a hypocrite. How much is his top education pick getting to offset the loss on his pension benefit?
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:41 am
@Vanillaman $7k a year in employee contribution for 30 years is a total of $210k. 75% of 70k is $52k. So basically 4 yrs of retirement eliminates the full direct contribution amount. So the teacher that starts at age 22 and works to 55 or 33 yrs with the max pension payout will most likely be around longer than 4 yrs. Lets say he/she live to 70 which is young in todays standards would draw out about $780,000. Pretty good deal at 9% and fantastic at the current 2%.
Comment by Chicago (d) Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:41 am
I’m not sure how having Chicago pick up the teacher’s portion of the pension payment as part of negotiated compensation is a problem. I worked for a company that contributed to my 401k as part of my compensation package. If they didn’t do that, I would have expected a higher salary. How is what the teachers have negotiated any different?
Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:42 am
CTU would be better served by sharing facts, including the history of the pension pick-up. In my downstate district, we negotiated this benefit during the 1990’s, taking a salary freeze for two years during a period of high inflation in exchange for 3.5 percent pick-up one year and 3.5 percent the next. Asking teachers to pay that amount is a salary reduction, regardless of how Claypool sells it.
Comment by Jeanne Dough Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:43 am
The bill on the 70K salary would be $4,900 additional for a pension that has a 3% compounded benefit. The employee share is 9% of which the employee currently pays 2% of salary.
Comment by Shoedoctor Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:44 am
Maybe I am confused, but if Rauner wants Chicago to be treated like all the other school districts, doesn’t that mean the state needs to pick up at least some of their pension payments like the do for the other school districts? And isn’t that what Emmanuel is asking for?
Comment by burbanite Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:45 am
CTU taking a page out of the AFSCME playbook. Let’s see how it plays out.
Comment by Almost the Weekend Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:46 am
Historically at least, it’s been a really good pension, for someone who stays the course and makes a career of it. You can pull upwards of 65, 70K a year in retirement, after a CPS career. Then for some there’s the 3% benefit, then the health care benefits.
I don’t knock it - I’d like it myself - but the money’s gotta come from somewhere. Paying down more upfront, as a tradeoff for the deferred compensation later in retirement, isn’t - by itself - morally reprehensible.
There’s also the politics and psychology involved. Digging around here a little, I came across this 2012 nugget from Greg Hinz:
“The [7 percent salary pickup] shift [in 1981] … arguably made the union and its members less involved in pension matters — if you don’t have to pay for something, you don’t watch it and care about it as much”
Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:47 am
Hyperbole, for sure, but when you’re the one in the barrel, emotions run high and you get the bad opera.
P.R. strategies aren’t for singing to the choir, they’re for converting the persuadable to your side.
Comment by Wordslinger Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:48 am
. . . P.R. strategies aren’t for singing to the choir, they’re for converting the persuadable to your side. . . .
Indeed, and I doubt this discussion will persuade anyone on either side to change their position.
It’s the same fundamental divide that led Governor Christie to express a desire to punch a public school teacher in the face.
Comment by Hamnlet's Ghost Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:52 am
Chicago(d), If you invest $7,000 per year for 33 years in a growth portfolio like the pension systems use, you would have approximately $750,000 saved up when the employee turned 55.
Comment by Pelonski Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:52 am
@nobody you know, if the teaching gig was such a sweet deal, why didn’t you go for it? Let me guess, you either had an overall higher compensation package in the private sector (salary plus benefits), more amenable working conditions, or you lacked the necessary qualifications. Why don’t you detail what you make so everyone here can comment on whether we think you are worth it. That would only be fair.
Comment by Cold Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:53 am
Is anyone cheering this considering how their daily lives would be harmed if they suddenly lost 10% of their income?
How would you like to lose two months of pay?
These anti-teacher folks need to get a grip. Few CTU members are getting rich at your expense. They are barely making ends meet. Would you attend college and get a degree in order to earn an average $70,000 in Chicago? Teaching in Chicago?
Then get hit with an average $7000 bill on top of it all?
Stop portraying these people like a bunch of folks undeserving of that little they get to teach your neighbor’s kids.
Just stop.
It is shocking that we have a governor who collects over $65,000,000 a year without lifting a finger, publically stomping on you and I for squeaking by as public servants. Bruce Rauner doesn’t care about you. He want to show that he can bust some political moves for his other Wine Club friends.
How perverted can your political priorities be that you can in anyway applaud this or support it?
Get a brain. Find your heart. Rediscover your humanity.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:55 am
One generation of taxpayers will be asked to fund the current operations of government and “make up” for generations of skipped pension payments. The state will need to do a lot of things differently going forward to pay its debt and maintain services at levels high enough to continue selling the state to businesses that expand or create jobs. This type of over the top language is not helpful to public employee union members.
Comment by Darnell Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:55 am
That’s gonna play well
Comment by Oneman Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:59 am
Yes, the CTU position was taken a bit out of context, but farther down they say this should all be paid for with a progressive income tax, closing “loopholes”, and a financial transaction tax–each of which would be like re-fighting WW2 and none of which have good prospects.
I would be easier to take CTU’s side if they had a real idea how to make it work.
Comment by Harry Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:01 am
Dumb thing to write, I agree.
I did like this line from the statement tho:
“Not one of these leaders has the courage to confront the wealthy untouchables or admonish the mayor’s handpicked school board full of bankers”
Handpicked school board full of bankers. Good stuff.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:02 am
The CPS pension pick-up originated in 1981 in lieu of a yearly raise. Unfortunately, pretty much every contract after that one has included yearly raises on top of the pension pick up. For example, the CTU contract from 1990-93 included a 20% raise over 3 years plus the pension pick-up.
Don’t forget that the standard step and ladder increases of 1.5-2% (CTU typically bundles these in 3 year increments of 5%) still exist outside of the standard raise. So even if the teachers did forego the traditional raise, they’re still getting salary increases plus the pick-up. But past contracts show that that both raises and pick-ups were common occurrences.
Now, folks will say they still gave up some salary for the pick-up, meaning instead of a 9% raise, they got 6% plus the pick-up. But that is a dubious proposition at best. Past contracts show no evidence the pick-up was even considered. If anything, the pick-up hides the true cost of compensation, masking smaller raises for the larger raises they actually are. Taxpayer transparency was not the goal on either side here, folks.
Bottom line…the pension pick-up has evolved from what should have been a one-time compensation benefit into a yearly entitlement. Each CTU contract explicitly states “This pension pick-up will not constitute a continuing element of compensation or benefit beyond the current contract.” This is not an entitlement.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:04 am
I’m not sure how it played out in Chicago with the CTU, but I understand that in many suburban districts, the district pick up of the teacher’s portion was a negotiated thing that substituted for a pay raise. It was beneficial to both the district and the teachers for tax reasons that made it cheaper to the district than giving comparable raises to the teachers. It might have been beneficial to the pensions system too, if that pick up was not reflected as teacher salary that would figure into the pension amount (I’m not sure on this point).
Comment by titan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:05 am
What was that about being ==extreme==? Sheesh.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:06 am
Foster brooks, Wrong. Nothing is “killing TRS.” The major contributor to TRS’ unfunded liability growth is the same thing it’s always been, insufficient State funding. Salary increases make up less than 1 percent of the growth. Read an actuarial report before posting bogus numbers, okay?
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:07 am
Madigan called Mayor Rahm Emanuel’s effort to get the state to pick up the employer share for teachers in Chicago “very understandable” and “very logical.”
I seemed to be rather uninformed on this issue. Is the above quote meant that the teachers should not make their pension contribution and that their ‘employer’ should pick up the entire tab?
Or does it mean something else?
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:12 am
I see it’s “rip teachers” day today in the comment section. So sad.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:14 am
As an educator, one way to help district in financial difficulty would be to eliminate the district pick-up of the employee portion of the pension contribution. I know that this opinion is not popular with IFT/IEA but under the current system this benefit is negotiated and varies district to district and all teachers do not receive the benefit. If all Illinois teacher had to pick-up the 9.2% rather than the district paying it on their behalf it would free up additional operational funds allowing districts to preserve not only jobs but programs.
Comment by Anon Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:14 am
Between the CTU and AFSCME, when it comes to over the top language and press releases, both are in a “race for the bottom.”
Comment by Louis G. Atsaves Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:15 am
nixit71
I am not sure if you understand how compounding interest works. What your post basically says is that if I got a 7% raise in 1981, I should get no future raises because I still have my 7% raise from 1981. This is nonsense. 1 benefit, the pension pick-up, doesn’t negate any future raises.
Comment by iThink Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:17 am
=== both are in a “race for the bottom.” ===
To join Rauner already in the muck down there Louis.
Comment by Norseman Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:26 am
While some may enjoy ripping into the teachers just remember, the pickup was the only contribution made by their employers. Chicago skipped out completely on their half of pension contributions for years, as did the Springfield for TRS. Adds a little perspective, no?
Comment by Wensicia Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:29 am
@iThink - No, what it means is that once that contract was up, and the next one was negotiated, the pick-up should cease to exist. Read the contract: This pension pick-up will not constitute a continuing element of compensation or benefit beyond the current contract.
If they continue to value the pick-up, they could forego another raise. Or keep a portion of the pick-up and accept a smaller raise. And so on. I see no evidence such considerations were made.
In effect, all CPS did was hide a salary increase. And if forgoing that raise in one year was made up for in future raises, then CPS’ true goal of containing costs never came to fruition.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:34 am
“If you invest $7,000 per year for 33 years in a growth portfolio like the pension systems use, you would have approximately $750,000 saved up when the employee turned 55.”
Hope you don’t live past 70. Assuming a starting pension of $56k and market returns of 6% that’s how long it would last. Oh, and you wouldn’t of had $750,000 unless you had been making $70k all 33 years. It really is good none of you have to manage your own 401ks or negotiate your own wages/benefits, it’s much tougher in the private world.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:35 am
How many years did the Chicago School Board declare a pension holiday and not pay the employer’s share of the CTU pension payment?
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:36 am
==I see it’s “rip teachers” day today in the comment section.==
Which thread are you reading? I see the majority of the comments here defending the teachers, with some mocking the leadership’s word choice, and just a few criticizing teacher pay/pensions.
Comment by Robert the Bruce Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:36 am
@AA - The major contributor to TRS’ unfunded liability growth is the same thing it’s always been, insufficient State funding.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:38 am
@ VanillaMan 9:55
Well said.
Comment by Tha missin g Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:38 am
@AA ==The major contributor to TRS’ unfunded liability growth is the same thing it’s always been, insufficient State funding==
Agreed, but the other elephants in the room:
- Insufficient actuarial assumptions on ROR that hid the true liability and cost of these pensions all these years
- An ever increasing retiree-to-active member ratio that will only lead to escalating costs placed solely on the taxpayer
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:41 am
I don’t want to pick on the teachers.
But a little bit like the soldiers / generals distinction, I might want to pick on former CTU heads Thomas Reece, Deborah Lynch-Walsh and Marilyn Stewart (who, to be sure, were selected by the teachers to be their voices and their champions).
Re the pension deferrals, I haven’t been able to find much of a Google-trail that any of these three CTU presidents raised much of a stink about them, not at the time it was going on, not when the fiscal good times were rolling in the 90s and Daley and Vallas and co were handing out the pay raises.
Karen Lewis is different and strikes me as a cut above, but by the time she was elected, the fiscal horse had long left the barn.
Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:43 am
Perhaps the way to get teachers back to picking up the employee side of the contribution would be to designate that half of future raises go to the employee contribution until they reach the full contribution level.
Comment by thechampaignlife Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:48 am
Morally reprehensible for the employees to pay the “employee contribution” portion??
Comment by Very Fed Up Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:49 am
Nixit,
==No, what it means is that once that contract was up, and the next one was negotiated, the pick-up should cease to exist.==
You understand that negating the pension pickup in the following year lowers the base from which negotiation starts. The compounding effect - or lack thereof- is a de facto pay cut.
In your example, if the pension pickup were to be non-renewed, then raises forgone should have been put in place.
You understand this, right? Lest the point was to lower compensation back in the 80’s.
Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:57 am
The Chicago Board of Education borrowed money from the Chicago teachers pension fund to pay their last pension payment in July. So didn’t the Chicago teachers actually pay for the last pension payment?
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:59 am
Teachers deserve to be paid what they were promised. CTU should demand a property tax increase for the amount necessary to fund the pension shortfall and on-going contributions. Taxpayers should pay for the services teachers provide.
Comment by bigdaddygeo Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:01 am
“This benefit is negotiable.”
I love that everyone here is back to the old “the negotiating process is holy” and everything that comes from it is fair game. Except of course when the other side finally negotiates on behalf of the taxpayer. Then you simply have your union write and lobby for a bill that removes negotiation and sends everything to a friendly arbitrator.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:02 am
== It is shocking that we have a governor who collects over $65,000,000 a year without lifting a finger, publically stomping on you and I for squeaking by as public servants. Bruce Rauner doesn’t care about you. He want to show that he can bust some political moves for his other Wine Club friends.
How perverted can your political priorities be that you can in anyway applaud this or support it?
Get a brain. Find your heart. Rediscover your humanity. ==
Rediscover your humanity….
I find it “morally reprehensible.” (not really, but I will stick with the rhetoric for the moment), that the CTU likes to pretend this is all about the kids, really, it isn’t about their members compensation or work rules at all. Give me a break, this conceit of public employee unions that it is about the public and not their members, is ridiculous. You don’t see the teamster or machinists making those arguments.
Here is how perverted I guess my political priorities are I guess, since Chicago will not raise the property tax if you say that increasing the contribution will allow for decreased class sizes, then hell yes.
The CTU helped elect the bunch (in Springfield) that helped create this mess, as much as they may want to pretend that isn’t the case, they are not without blame here.
Secondly, the easiest way to fix the CPS funding situation is to do what we do (did) in the suburbs, raise your damn property taxes.
The plan of ’shut up taxpayer and pay more while nothing else changes’, isn’t gonna fly. The same processes, and ideas that got us into this mess are not going to magically solve those same issues with more revenue.
If the argument is, well you don’t have those benefits in the private sector anymore, but that is your fault and you should try to get them back instead of wanting them to go away for us. Well, good luck with that.
Finally this…
I don’t have an education degree, but shouldn’t you kind of know that going into education that education isn’t the path to huge paydays (unless you go into administration to some degree)?
Wondering if someone should make a bigger contribution to their pension doesn’t mean you hate them just for reference.
Comment by OneMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:03 am
== “This pension pick-up will not constitute a continuing element of compensation or benefit beyond the current contract.” ==
== then CPS’ true goal of containing costs never came to fruition. ==
True, it appears CPS could claw it back. But we also have to look at the fact that (more or less) 8% pickup also held down the final compensation amount used to calculate an individual’s pension by the same amount. I’m not going to do the math, but I suspect that 8%, compounded, when compared to what needed to be put in the pension system had CPS not done the pickup, would show it was actually cheaper to CPS to do the pickup.
Having some extended family as teachers, I don’t know why anyone would want to teach in Chicago. One relative started out in CPS, but moved to the suburbs as soon as they could. You couldn’t pay me enough to teach in some parts of CPS.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:04 am
To the stories, the statements, and the post …
AFSCME could use some better PR advice.
The newspapers could have been more accurate even though we’ve come to expect out of context quotes to be used to score political points.
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:07 am
oops … typed too fast, confused the unions.
Should read “… CTU could use …”
Comment by RNUG Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:08 am
@Ipso Facto - I understand. The negotiations would start with the previous year’s gross wages (not including the pension pick-up). It would indeed be a pay cut if no other increases occurred. Then the question would remain for the new contract…do you want another pension pick-up or a raise?
In theory, a pension pick-up benefits the employee in the short-term (more money in their pocket today) over the long-term (a higher salary upon which their pension would be calculated). That’s only if wages remain suppressed throughout a career. Have they been? It’s hard to tell.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:16 am
Vanillaman: In my private sector life the recession caused our pay to go down 50% one year, and our pay was lower forsix years. So public employees whi work only nine months taking a 10% cut when the state is dying does not generate sympathy here.
Comment by Let'sMovetoNorthDakota Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:18 am
@Robert the 1st.
Redo your math! If you had $750K that would mean $5 k until you were 70 under your scenario. But meanwhile that $750 K would be earning 6% (again under your scenario). Obviously on a declining basis but 6% on $750K would be over $40K earned in the first year even with monthly payouts.
Comment by Federalist Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:24 am
Robert, SERS averages over 8% returns, so there’s that. There’s also folks who die much younger than 70 which help offset the ones who live past it. Then there’s the folks who keep working past eligibility. Pooled assetts allow for the pensions to get paid. Also, your math, besides using 25% lower ROI, did not include the employers share, not the pickup but the part they are required to pay. In all actuality a person’s pension contributions plus the states, plus compound interest leave millions of dollars in the pension fund to cover their pension. Pensions are not too expensive, the interest on all the skipped payments by the state is.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:29 am
And even if it was only 750k it would earn 60k in interest per annum at 8%. So it is plenty to cover their pension. Golly gee math is hard.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:36 am
Me too- I did not forget the employer’s share, I was going off another poster’s example. Most private sector people are hoping to retire by 70, how many teachers die by then? Pensions are indeed expensive. If everyone could retire in their 50s with 3% compounded raises each year we would. Even with an employer doing a 100% match up to 10% you can’t make that math work.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:37 am
“Golly gee math is hard.” I guess so. Using your unrealistic 8% on 750k they would make it to age 73 with a pension of $97k and would have collected $1.545 million and completely exhausted the pension.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:39 am
I know a young high school student who immigrated to the U.S. from China. His English is very poor as are, not surprisingly, his grades. With one exception, he aces mathematics. Numbers form a universal language. So, setting aside the heated divide among the various groups in this discussion, the matter boils down to numbers. The bucks are either there or they are not.
Have retirement funds been mismanaged? Maybe, but it is doubtful that any politician or political appointee will ever be called out for it. And, even if there were recriminations, the shortage of numbers (dollars) would remain. And, promises made to the teachers, just like those made to state workers, must be honored. Unfortunately, the public will ultimately be called upon to pony up the shortfall. This is likely to be painful and one has to suspect that a number of politicians will lose their jobs as a result. Yet, this would take care of the past and present financial problem. But, what of the future?
Once again, it’s all about numbers. In this connection the solution is to re-do the actuarial math starting at this point and then moving forward. It seems likely that a new and improved equation will call for a greater contribution from all participants.
Comment by Keyser Soze Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:43 am
The value of the CPS pension pick-up (in which the employer picks up 7% of the 9% pension contribution) equals a 3.75% raise compounded per year over a 3 year contract. Basically, a teacher getting that pick-up and no raise nets the same amount of take-home pay as the guy paying his full pension share and getting a 3.75% raise over the life of the contract. Mind you, this does not includes automatic step/ladder raises.
Come next contract, you’re back to square one. The city gets to start out with a lower salary to negotiate against (good for the city). If you get a 3.75% raise instead of the pickup, you’re taking home the same amount as you were in the previous contract. But at least your pensionable salary increases.
But these raise/pick-up combos muddy the waters. If you value the pick-up at 3.75%, add 3% raise, then add a 2% step increase, you’re talking a pretty hefty raise every year. And that’s what this evolved into.
Transparency was never a priority with this benefit, that’s for sure.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:43 am
All hyperbole aside, that 7 percent pick up by CPS should be phased out…and it should be done at the bargaining table. Claypool should give in on some of the work rules, (limiting all the standardized testing should be low hanging fruit,) and CTU has to realize paying only 2 percent into their pensions is the greatest deal of all time and has to come to an end.
Comment by Phil Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:46 am
Has anyone calculated / guesstimated what the funding ration WOULD have been, if the regular payments had been made, after 1995? The article mentions at times it was hovering over 100%, temporarily. So what if for ten years all the set-asides had been faithfully paid, + the stock market growth?
I ask because that’s the other thing about this politically. The stock market was so good, -now- we know it was illusory / too bubble-driven, but at the time just what would the funding ratio had looked like, on paper, circa 2005? 150 percent funded? More?
There would have been tremendous pressure - and I’m guessing from many teachers themselves - to say, “Y’know, that looks pretty well funded. Can’t we take some of that, and put it into school construction and our salaries now?”
Comment by ZC Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:46 am
Rich is doing a nice job stirring the pot today with that out of context quote.
But the sad thing here is this debate is a prime example of the race to the bottom. As has been said many times, teachers make choices in negotiations based on the local members preferences. That may mean placing an emphasis on salary or health insurance or pension payments. It’s all the same, but because we have allowed ourselves to fall into the “I don’t have it so no one should” mode of thinking, the pension pickup “looks” worse.
Corporate profits are at all time highs while salaries aren’t keeping up. When will private sector employees look at the real problem?
To Anon @10:14. If you really are an educator, you should know that your local union negotiated the terms of your contract that you had the right to vote on and that contract can be reopened. I find it interesting that you chose to mention the 2 statewide teachers union affiliates in your effort to make teachers look greedy. I’d say you are not who you claim to be.
Then we get letsmovetoNDakota who has some unverifiable private sector sob story. Teacher salaries and benefits are public information for all to see, so unless you want to give us all the details of your situation and be clear about how much you make in good times and in bad, it’s not a valid comparison.
Vanillaman gets it.
Comment by mehh Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:50 am
What is CPS going to give up for the CPS pension pick-up? That’s the question…
If it’s increased salary, that might not be a cost effective move, since higher salary = higher pension payments.
So it’s probably going to have to be job security.
We can debate the CTU’s word choice, but the fact of the matter is that CPS is going to have to give the CTU something in return. Let’s not forget who lost the strike, so to assume that CTU is going to lay down and let CPS call the shots is pretty silly.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:54 am
@ Phil and all,
That’s CPS’ problem right now… so much of their political support comes from the charter and/or accountability community, so to give up testing or charters is just as problematic for CPS.
It cannot be stressed enough how bad of shape CPS is in fiscally and politically.
Comment by From the 'Dale to HP Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 11:56 am
The IL Supreme Court said no to pension theft.
So now wage theft will be pursued and the destruction of collective bargaining.
This is what it will take to continue on our path to greater and greater income inequality.
Comment by Enviro Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:23 pm
==But the sad thing here is this debate is a prime example of the race to the bottom.==
Are you referring to the public sector “race” that has no competition, forced payment of entry fee even if you do not wish to race, and no freedom to choose what race you wish to run? Because that is not a race. That is my high school walk-a-thon.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:24 pm
Having been at the negotiating table with the unions I can honestly say that they do use some fairly silly hyperbole at times. The quote in the post is a good example.
Management, is not without the same capacity.
Which ever side it emanates from (CTU has a well established history of saying these types of things “murder mayor” comes to mind) it is not helpful.
I am always amazed when people, regardless of position at the table, think this type of stuff along with negotiating in the media, will help them. It almost always has the opposite effect.
=- Insufficient actuarial assumptions on ROR that hid the true liability and cost of these pensions all these years
- An ever increasing retiree-to-active member ratio that will only lead to escalating costs placed solely on the taxpayer=
Nixit71- You make some good points but the “solely in the taxpayer stuff is not one of them. Almost all of the tens of thousands of educators that pay into the pension are taxpayers. I think you are better than that.
And, even a 46% of obligations TRS has only touched the principal a few times to make pension payments. The system needs to be better funded but stories of its’ imminent collapse are exaggerated.
Comment by JS Mill Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:28 pm
Nixit71,
Much obliged the reply.
Comment by Ipso Facto Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:28 pm
Robert, check SERS. 8.5% is what the actuary stated was an appropriate rate of return based on past performance. You and i would have trouble making it but evidently the pension funds havent.
Regardless, up to 17% of salary is supposed to go into the pension funds for teachers. Add the compound interest with that admittedly high rate of return (it was confirmed as appropriate just last year) and that teacher retiring after 30 years averaging a low 50k per year has over a million dollars in the fund. Now if she or he gets 75% of a final salary of say 80k, 60k. Now I ran the numbers and with that 8.5% ROR, the principal in that case remainsuntouched indefinitely. In fact after ten years of paying a pension that increases by 3% every year there’s 1.38 million in the fund. When everyone makes their contribution things can work out this way. Granted no one was seeing 8.5% in the recession but we are once again. Pensions are forced. Savings plans with the benefit of a guarantee on investment return. They are in some cases the cheapest option. Note that Chicago and its teachers would have to pay nearly 15% for SS which provides a much lower benefit. So all around it is a good deal. Salaries can be lower since benefits are good and the pension only costs 2% more than SSI, so it saves more in salary than the 2% it costs. Again, I know math is hard but open up an excel spreadsheet and play around with numbers. You’ll see the magic of compound interest, and if you remove contributions early on you’ll see how much that changes the final balance. Pensions only go broke when they are underfunded, leveraged or looted.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:33 pm
Sorry for the errors in spelling and punctuation. I’m on my phone.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:38 pm
“I know math is hard but open up an excel spreadsheet and play around with numbers.”
I’m flattered you thought I was doing all that in my head.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:39 pm
Yes, with annual returns of 8.5% the math works. In fact, the gains would out-pace the withdraws. But there are slow years, and even recessions. Any person assuming 8.5% for their 401k will die in a ditch for retirement. For government pensions however, the taxpayers are expected to make up for the slow years/recessions.
Comment by Robert the 1st Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 12:48 pm
@Me too - I do have a pension spreadsheet that is tied to TRS rules. I have played with the numbers every which way. A TRS teacher, starting in 1980, retiring in 2015, 9% employer match YEARLY, 8.5% ROR, 5-6% yearly raises, has about 20-25 years of pension funding. Not bad. But change the assumptions:
7.5% ROR = 15 years of funding
20% pension spikes = 19 years of funding
7.5% ROR + 20% spike = 13 years of funding
6% ROR = 10 years of funding
Compounded interest is indeed the pensioner’s friend. Unfortunately, most of it is derived from his lowest salaries. Notice how the biggest vulnerability (outside the employer portion) is the ROR.
Any retiree beyond 80 is typically in the red on their pension (I know, I know…it’s a pool). The Tier 1 pensioners retiring this century are the ones projected to break the bank.
Add to that toxic stew the ratio of retirees to workers coming down the pike. Remember, the pensioner’s cost is forever locked and guaranteed. The taxpayers pick up the difference.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:07 pm
In my private sector life the recession caused our pay to go down 50% one year, and our pay was lower forsix years. So public employees whi work only nine months taking a 10% cut when the state is dying does not generate sympathy here.
Well, pity does love company and you sound very pitiful.
Comment by VanillaMan Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:07 pm
–Yes, with annual returns of 8.5% the math works.–
Yes, and what is the average rate of return for TRS? Over 9%. There will be lean years, and there are fat years, but as long as payments are made the funding should be there. A pension system is not a 401k, a pool of investors across age spans is not the same as an individual 401k.
- nixit71 -
By doing the math the way you have done you have completely ignored a 7% raise in 1981 (vs 0) and the compounding effect of every raise since. It’s disingenuous.
Anyway, I suspect the answer to this would be a gradual phase-out of the pickup in conjunction with salary raises - leaving take home pay flat while adjusting the ledger from pension to salary.
Comment by iThink Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:15 pm
Good years make up for bad ones. 8.5 seems high until you realize the s&p has averaged 10 since its inception. Accounting for inflation that comes to seven, but since we already factored in raises and AAI we don’t need to do that.
If it weren’t for underfunding the pension funds would be over 90%, which is plenty funded enough considering the entire workforce won’t retire at once. Additionally, the systems were even more poorly funded forty years ago, yet they still exist. Chicken little was wrong. With the market recovering the funds made more than expected each of the last two years. Couple that with Quinn actually making the State’s payments and the future doesn’t look so bleak. The 90’s are what brought us close to full funding last time. We just got out of a downturn. Why not give out investments a chance to recover before we start wailing. Oh, and don’t forget that changing the pension formula, besides being unconstitutional, would also likely stick the state with all those SSI payments they skipped out on over the last decades when they had a qualified plan. Look, tier ii already is a net gain for the pension fund. Tier I folks will all retire in the next twenty or so years. There are a lot of reasons to expect the funding ratio will improve. Taxpayer dollars are no more being looted to pay pensions than they are to pay off bonds. The states pension contribution is a result of the ramp designed to get to adequate funding after years of skipping payments. That ramp had small payments in the beginning effectively continuing to skip portions of the payment while claiming to be fixing the problem. Well, the big payments are here and the debt has become due. It isn’t because pensions are too expensive, is because we have to pay back the money from those skipped payments at 8.5% interest. The pensions aren’t going anywhere. Not should they. There was a time when nearly everyone in this country had a pension. Old folks shouldn’t be bagging groceries to eat cat food. They shouldn’t have to sign all of their property over to their kids so they can go suffer in a medicaid nursing home. People work all of their lives and they should be allowed to have some dignity in their golden years.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:20 pm
@iThink - Actually, I’m doing TRS, not CTPF (aka CPS). I’m just trying to keep it simple. No pension pick-ups included
In my research, I’ve come across a school district that gave an avg of 8% yearly raises over about a 20 year time span (not entirely obscene, considering inflation, but pretty generous nonetheless). The bigger the raise %, the shorter the lifespan of a properly funded pension.
==Tier I folks will all retire in the next twenty or so years.==
But we’ll be paying those pensions for 50+ years.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 1:49 pm
50 years? So they are all going to live to be 105-110 years old? You need to take the average life expectancy-average age of retirement. So maybe 78-60 tops. Pension paid for 18 years. If it’s 50k per year to start that totals 1.17 million, but wait, with our friend compound interest we know that to cover that if principal invested was 722666.7 the interest alone would cover the pension payments. When the person died that money could be used to pay a survivor benefit of 50% for awhile but whatever is left when they did would revert to the system. After 30 years of working contributing on average 8500/year to the system the principal amount would be 1.159 million using 9% interest.
Comment by Me too Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:05 pm
Starting CPS salary for a teacher with a master’s degree is roughly $54,000. 30-35 kids, no co-teachers or assistant, buy your own supplies, work 60 hours/week. And now the current pension pickup proposals amount to a 8-10% pay cut. Many new teachers aren’t necessarily planning to stay long enough for pensions and/or are in the new pension plan that offers lower benefits. The effect of these proposals to fix problems of the past will be a future long-term lack of good teaching candidates at CPS schools. Morality aside, these types of proposals will create a worse educational future for CPS kids.
Comment by GR Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:11 pm
There are plenty of Tier 1 employees in their 20/30’s right now. What will the life expectancy be when they retire? Granted, there will be more Tier 2 employees by then, but the math behind their retirement benefits willbe the same as I outlined above.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:13 pm
@GR - The current generation across the board - public and private - is being asked to fix the problems of the past. I agree, at some point, your salary/benefits will bottom out to a point where you’ll have no choice but to raise both to attract any talent.
Here’s another thought…Why doesn’t CTU charge all teachers with less than 5 years experience $1 dues per year? Those members get worse benefits (Tier II) and less employment protection (no tenure) than the other members. Why should they pay the same amount for less benefits? And you even said new teachers aren’t staying teachers long enough for pension anyway. You would think CTU - and all other unions - would recognize this discrepancy and progressively charge their members on ability to pay. Nope. Flat fee.
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:27 pm
Nix, I appreciate your efforts in trying to validate a claim before throwing something up here.
A couple points for you to consider (from TRS CAFR)
Long term returns have not been “insufficient”-9.3% 30 year return.
Average annuitant profile: age 59 with 29 years of service.
Further, 20% pay spikes are history since the districts started having to pay the freight.
The declining active to annuitant ratio is a concern for most pension funds, but the average active salary is substantially higher than the average annuity, offsetting the impact.
I set up a spreadsheet awhile back. It may not have been as elaborate as yours, but it showed for my hypothetical employee, 31 years of active service plus State match invested at actual TRS returns over the service period, was sufficient to pay pension plus AAI for over 30 years in retirement.
Comment by Arthur Andersen Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 2:39 pm
@AA
- Correct on the 20% spike. Even though my example goes 1980-2015, I could easily subtract 10 years and the spike would be in play. And the math shows it does subtract 4-5 years of pension funding from the equation. And it was prevalent for a long time across the entire state. Truth be told…any late career promotion has the same effect. Most principals run out of funding much sooner as well.
- Good point on the avg active salary. That does help. Not sure how much though.
The question remains - to pay that 9% normal cost YEARLY - whether it be 1983 or 1993 or 2003 - what should the tax rate have been? We obviously didn’t have the cash to pay TRS or all the other non-IMRF pension funds. Hiding the true cost from the taxpayers that actually consumed those services…where did that get us?
Comment by nixit71 Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 3:07 pm
The CTU is just as much at fault for their pension mess as the City of Chgo is, if not more. With a wink and a nod they allowed the city to take pension holiday’s and then secured larger raises than any of the other city employees. Over the last 20 years the teachers received larger raises then the Firemen, Paramedics, and Police Officers. With two months off in the summer, two weeks at Christmas, Easter Week, every Holiday, weekends off, never week midnights or third watch they border on part-time employees. How many city employees have to take second and third jobs to send their kids to private schools as do many of the city’s teachers? Everyone is paying 9% or higher for pensions. For the city teachers to moan about being asked to pay more than the measly 2% they now pay is ridiculous.
Comment by Roolo Tamasi Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 3:52 pm
I’m totally shocked at some of the most insensitive comments that border on ignorance I’ve ever seen in regards to educators. What ever happened to the American dream and notion that if you go to college, earn a degree that one should be compensated well? In the private sector people with MBA’s make six figure salaries, make bonuses in the thousands and have matching 401K’s! But yet nobody on this post is complaining. But yet teachers who have multiple university degrees, required to attend classes for the rest of their lives so long as they teach costing thousands, and are not paid six figured salaries compared to their private sector counterparts with equivalent degrees are not allowed to be afforded to have a decent retirement? It’s seems as if we have a envy issues of “well I don’t have a pension or I have to pay 10% into mine so should everyone else mentality.” Are you kidding me?
The bottom line is nobody has yet to mention if the city of Chicago had paid into the pension funds along with the state, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with. Its as if one takes their credit card and maxes out the credit card, complains about having to pay the minimum balance and now blames others and expects help. CPS & Chicago has a spending problem period. Teachers don’t get matching 401k’s or bonuses or large salaries or social security and other various benefits or perks from corporate America.
And to further clarify the issue on pensions, CPS wants teachers to pay an additional 7% of their pension that CPS never bothered to pay into for over a decade as was promised by them. CPS also wants teachers to work an additional 20% longer school day and year for free, which means no overtime or raises period. My goodness how much more of this madness must educators endure ?
Comment by Your Conscious Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 9:45 pm
I’m totally shocked at some of the most insensitive comments that border on ignorance I’ve ever seen in regards to educators. What ever happened to the American dream and notion that if you go to college, earn a degree that one should be compensated well? (HOW ABOUT MERIT PAY?)In the private sector people with MBA’s make six figure salaries, make bonuses in the thousands and have matching 401K’s! (THEY WORK A 40 HOUR WEEK ALL YEAR LONG AND GET FIRED IF THE DO NOT MEASURE UP) But yet nobody on this post is complaining. But yet teachers who have multiple university degrees, required to attend classes for the rest of their lives so long as they teach costing thousands, and are not paid six figured salaries compared to their private sector counterparts with equivalent degrees are not allowed to be afforded to have a decent retirement? It’s seems as if we have a envy issues of “well I don’t have a pension or I have to pay 10% into mine so should everyone else mentality.” Are you kidding me? (TEACHERS USED TO PAY 9% NOW ONLY 2%. THEY LET THE CITY TAKE PENSION HOLIDAYS. NOW THEIR FUND IS IN TROUBLE. MAYBE THEY SHOULD OF HAVE TAKEN SOME FINANCE CLASSES)
The bottom line is nobody has yet to mention if the city of Chicago had paid into the pension funds along with the state, we wouldn’t be in this mess to begin with(WHERE WERE THE LAWSUITS? AS LONG AS THE BETTER THAN AVERAGE RAISE CAME IN NO ONE CARED). Teachers don’t get matching 401k’s or bonuses or large salaries or social security and other various benefits or perks from corporate America. (NEITHER DO ANY OTHER CITY EMPLOYEES)
And to further clarify the issue on pensions, CPS wants teachers to pay an additional 7% (NOT 16% JUST 9% TOTAL) of their pension that CPS never bothered to pay into for over a decade as was promised by them. CPS also wants teachers to work an additional 20% longer school day and year for free, (ARE THEY WORKING OVER 8.5 HOURS A DAY?) which means no overtime or raises period. My goodness how much more of this madness must educators endure? (TRY CORPORATE AMERICA. BUT NO PERFORMANCE NO PAY NO CAREER NO JOB)
THE CTU HAS NO POLITICAL CAPITAL LEFT IN SPRINGFIELD. IF ONE GOVERNMENTAL UNIT DOES FILE BANKRUPTCY IT WILL BE THE CPS.
We all respect good teachers. Just come down off that horse.
Comment by Rollo Tamasi Thursday, Aug 6, 15 @ 10:24 pm
Rollo, I respect your 2 cents but its based not upon research or facts but mere assumptions by people such as yourself who are basing their opinions on their emotional feelings rather than on substantive facts!
For example # 1:
You claim regular folks except for teachers work 40 hour work week? Where did you get your research from? You are assuming like most statements made here. Teachers in Chicago work over 7 hour days in the classroom as a result of the increase of 20% rule which happened almost 4 years ago. In addition, you clearly have no knowledge of the field of education since you fail to realize that teachers work an additional 2-3 hours after school every day , at home grading papers, lesson planning on the weekends, calling parents, professional development meetings, college courses to maintain their license, collaborative work meetings etc. So where the heck did you get teachers work less than 8 hour days I ask? Rollo, admit it you assumed didn’t ya!
Error #2 you made: Where the blazing assumption did you get that teachers can’t be fired? Under SB-7 all Illinois educators and yes even the ones with tenure can be dismissed for poor performance, which by the way is based on children’s test scores. How would you like to be held responsible if a child came from a home that the parents did not invest within their child’s education or are homeless or missed most of the school year, but yet teachers are still responsible if that child fails, it reflects upon their evaluation. So spare me your errors on assumption. TEACHERS DO AND CAN BE FIRED! THEY EVALUATION IS BASED ON STUDENT PERFORMANCE AND CAN LOSE THEIR JOBS IF NO IMPROVEMENTS ARE MADE! You did it again Rollo…..You assumed without facts.
Error #3: Teachers had no control over the city & pension. The General Assembly (Use Google if you don’t know what that is) passed legislation that gave Chicago a pension holiday allowing them to skip on any pension payments for a decade! In addition, it exempted them from any lawsuits. Teachers had no control over this. But when the decade was up , they sure did sue and the Illinois Courts has ruled that teacher pensions are protected under the constitution and city governments must pay. And by the way when you get your employer to pay for certain benefits in exchange for less of a pay raise its called negotiations.
Error #4:Neither do any other city employees is not what I was comparing. I think you might need a reading class Rollo. I specifically stated I was comparing it to the private sector of corporate America, not other city employees! Again you jumped the gun on that.
Error#5 You are making the assumption that CPS should file for bankruptcy? CPS can’t file for bankruptcy. Where did you get your talking points from the governor? Please do some research. CPS nor the city of Chicago has the legal authority to file for bankruptcy. Only the General Assembly can authorize it and that ain’t going to happen EVER! It’s just another scare tactic in order to get the parties to give in to their positions that everyone has dug in.
If you truly value educators,I suggest you brush up on basic 101 of doing some research before you spout all of your assumptions, which by the way were all factual wrong! I hope you have a wonderful day
Comment by Your Conscious Friday, Aug 7, 15 @ 1:01 am