DonBee

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 10:43 p.m.

Mr. Norton - So I ask you what is fair then? Number of hours in the contract? Medical and Dental Benefits? Pay for coaching and extra curricular activities? Overtime? By Law and regulation, all of these are compensation to the employee, as well as disability insurance, contributions to retirement plans, etc. The reason that the Department of Labor moved from Salary to Total Compensation was that so much of the "payment" for work had moved from the paycheck to benefits. Much of this was because the benefits were treated differently for tax purposes. Lets try this one on for size - one 20 year old is now a UAW first year member at GM. The other is the manager of a Corporate McDonalds. Both make an hourly wage of $14. Do they have the same compensation? I will let you ponder that answer, because the real answer is very interesting and not what you would expect. The real reform needs to come not on the backs of the teachers and their students, but with a reduction in school districts, consolidation of purchasing and other administrative services, etc. None of this will come easily, but there is still a lot of overhead that needs to come out of the system in the state. It is going to be a long and painful road.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 12:52 p.m.

AlphaAlpha, It's complicated partly because the legislature is prohibited from making an "ex post facto" law, which means it is difficult legally for them to change the employment terms for employees already in the system. (At least, that is my understanding.) So you end up with various tiers that look different, depending on when people were hired. But, yeah, it's messy. I disagree about the impact of the "long bull market." First off, Michigan did not experience a lot of that bull market in the last decade. Certainly school funding did not experience a huge increase. Funding stayed up with inflation at best (for some districts) and significantly lagged inflation here in AAPS and elsewhere. There is a good Citizen's Research Council of Michigan report on MIPSERS from 2004 that identified the key problems. One of the largest is that the cost of health care generally and for retirees especially has risen many times the rate of inflation for the last couple of decades. Since the health-care portion of MPSERS is pay-as-you-go, this has meant that the district contribution for MPSERS health care has gone from a small part of the total to being at least half today. That money is being used immediately for current retiree health benefits and not held for the future. The other main problem is, as you say, a growing group of beneficiaries and a shrinking group of contributors (current employees). That's partly demographics (people are living longer, the baby boom generation is retiring, and so on) and partly because schools have responded to tight funding by reducing their staff. Fewer current employees and higher retirement costs equals much higher contribution rates. Of course, the 2001-2 and most recent market crashes have really hurt the value of the assets in the retirement system (that supports the pension portion, not health care). Accounting rules require MPSERS to jack up contribution requirements to match their estimate of unfunded liability. While some people and businesses did experience a lot of growth in the last decade, state tax revenues supporting education did not. The sales tax, the largest contributor to School Aid Fund, did not cover the most dynamic parts of the economy. Proposal A's limitations on the growth of taxable value of property mean that what could be taxed significantly lagged the real value of property. Schools simply did not see the "boom." But they felt the "bust." I agree that pay-as-you-go retirement systems are very vulnerable, and we need to do something to change the way we provide retirement benefits. But it should not come entirely at the expense of those who hoped to receive a pension. Our overall level of state taxes as a proportion of total income is still at one of the lowest levels since 1978. There are people who have done well over the last decade. I think it is reasonable to ask them to help out a bit more when so many other people are hurting.

AlphaAlpha

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 11:16 a.m.

Thank you for the numbers, and vesting info. Will ponder. Seems way too complicated. C'est la vie.

AlphaAlpha

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 11:03 a.m.

Mr. Norton - The answer to "This is a special case of a more general phenomenon: if my employer pays property taxes which support police and fire services, which also end up benefiting me, is that "compensation"? Or do we all make contributions to our common good that are difficult to link with our private good." is "No." Employer expenses are generally irrelevant to employee income, regardless of the nature of the employer expenses. The other issues...not so easily answered. Good points, all. "Pay as as you go" = Ponzi, ultimately. Works until it doesn't. If we ignore that crucial long term aspect, retirement benefits are future compensation. If benefits were constant along with payee and payer numbers, there would be no need for increased contributions. However, during the long bull market, these variables changed; we now have more retirees, fewer contributors, and higher benefits. Factors somewhat beyond individual control, and various representatives who have consistently chosen the popular option instead of the fiscally prudent options, bring us to the current situation. Regrettably, we are likely closer to the liquidation phase of these Ponzi schemes than the beginning, and this is where folks begin to get hurt financially. It stinks. And there is essentially no fix that is politically acceptable. And, the worst is yet to come. Unfortunately, evidence suggests the current environment will persist for several years; that's another story. The phenomena is western-world wide; you may have noticed this week that in France, the (very generous) retirement age was raised from 60 to 62, a change to be fully implemented by 2016, as originally proposed. This is a huge change; protests are predictable. We will no doubt see many more substantial paradigm changes in the next few years, worldwide. Still curious about vesting time, if not yet answered.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 10:20 a.m.

[second try] AlphaAlpha, To answer your question, no, it's not a 5 year vesting period. There are minimum age and years of service requirements to receive pension benefits under MPSERS, and the latest retirement legislation changed those for new employees. Here are some quotes from an analysis by the House Fiscal Agency: "Currently MPSERS employees have to be age 55 and have 30 years of service to be eligible to retire in the Basic plan or may retire with 30 years with no minimum age requirement under the Member Investment Plan (MIP)." [The Basic plan is for employees hired before 1990, who make no contributions; the MIP is for employees hired after 1990 or who elected it, who make their own contributions to the system. ORS says most employees are now in the MIP.] [The ORS web site also indicates that employees can retire at age 60 with ten or more years of service under either plan. Thus the vesting period is 10 years.] About the 3% to health care: "Beginning July 1, 2010, the bill would require that all MPSERS employees contribute 3% of their compensation into a funding account, which under the bill would mean an irrevocable trust which would be established under House Bill 4073, the Public Employee Retirement Health Care Funding Act," [This is on top of the required contributions for the MIP.] About the hybrid plan for new employees: "The bill would move all newly hired school employees after July 1, 2010 into a hybrid pension and defined contribution system. The pension would be similar to the existing MIP plan with the following changes: ** Increase final average compensation period from 3 years to 5 years, which will decrease the final average compensation for most employees. ** Increase the minimum retirement age to 60 with 10 years of service (currently minimum age for Basic plan is 55 and the MIP plan has no minimum age with 30 years of service). ** Prohibit the purchase of service credit to meet service requirements. ** Eliminate cost of living adjustments to pension allowances. ** Provide a defined contribution benefit (Tier 2) with a 50% employer match on a maximum employee contribution of 2% of salary, for a maximum employer contribution of 1%. An employee would automatically be enrolled with the maximum contribution of 2% unless they affirmatively elect not to contribute or contribute a lesser amount. An employee would also be allowed to contribute additional funds without the match.... The employee would vest in the employer match as follows: 50% after 2 years of service, 75% after 3 years of service, and 100% after 4 years of service." So, under the new rules, you would be able to "walk away" with the entire amount of the DC portion after 4 years of service. But the primary benefit is still the traditional pension, which requires 10 years of service and cannot be claimed until age 60. Purchasing service years will be prohibited under the new rules. Even current employees must generally have a minimum of 10 years of service to vest, and even then they have to wait until age 60. Taking a pension earlier requires substantially higher years of service. These details come from the HFA analysis of the conference report on SB 1227, which is what became law. You can find this and other analyses here: http://legislature.mi.gov/doc.aspx?2010-SB-1227 By the way, contribution requirements for MIP employees are: * 3.9% of salary (hired or joined MIP before 1990/93) * $510 + 4.3% of pay over $15,000 (hired between 1990 and 2008) * $510 + 6.4% of pay over $15,000 (hired after June 2008) The 3% for health care and the DC contributions are on top of these amounts. See: http://michigan.gov/orsschools/0,1607,7-206-36450_36456---,00.html

AlphaAlpha

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

(Occasional text issues are likely due to some vague incompatibility between the otherwise outstanding Linux Ubuntu box here and the Comment software utility in use at A2.com. Text in the comment box is proper when Submitted. The issue is In Work, as they say. The Wild Wild Web...)

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 10:14 a.m.

AlphaAlpha, I tried to answer your question about MPSERS vesting, but the comment was pulled for some reason. I'll try again. As to compensation: yes, it absolutely makes sense for an employer to look at the total cost of employing someone. But you can forgive employees for not counting FICA contributions (employee or employer) as part of what people normally think of as compensation. Social Security and Medicare are entirely pay-as-you-go, so that what I pay in FICA today is being used to pay someone else's benefits tomorrow. I get "credit" for making contributions, but no assurance that the system will be solvent when I actually retire. This is a special case of a more general phenomenon: if my employer pays property taxes which support police and fire services, which also end up benefiting me, is that "compensation"? Or do we all make contributions to our common good that are difficult to link with our private good. Likewise, the district contributions to MPSERS for teachers goes towards paying benefits to today's retirees. Teachers get the same credit for years of service regardless of how high or low the district's contribution percent is in any particular year (it changes every year). Are these contributions a cost of employment for the district? Yes. Are they compensation, in the sense most people use the term? I don't think so. If I'm a teacher, and the district's required contribution to MPSERS jumps 2% in one year (as it may next year), have I really received a 2% "increase" in "compensation"? This kind of thing really needs to be viewed as a cost of doing business; calling it compensation is a lead-in to press for further cuts to real employee compensation, no matter what sector you work in.

AlphaAlpha

Sat, Jun 19, 2010 : 9:40 a.m.

Hello Mr. Norton - You are so correct, "When most people talk about their compensation, they do not typically include the employer share of FICA payments." As you likely know, most Americans are quite remarkably illiterate financially. It's a significant problem, much worse here than Europe, e.g. (The reasons for this illiteracy are another topic, though clearly, financial basics are almost completely overlooked in most schools - to our detriment. The inability to balance a checkbook; misunderstanding basic financial terms, etc., all are very poor reflections on the schools, and society. It's a blessing for all manner of swindlers, though.) Irrespective of financial illiteracy, retirement contributions, all kinds of contributions in fact, need to be tallied as compensation. Remarkably few workers 'know' that their true FICA contribution is fully twice what they see withheld from their checks, for example. (It would be educational if everyone were able to play Small Business Owner for a few days... ) You can be absolutely certain that when a company/government is considering outsourcing/layoffs, they absolutely do look at the cost of retirement benefits, and all other benefits and costs. Without question. They look at the total cost of employment: total compensation.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 11:03 p.m.

DonBee: The issue is not whether other defined benefit pension beneficiaries face similar issues; they clearly do. What was at issue here (and in other threads) was whether it was fair to tack on MPSERS contributions by the districts to teacher compensation, for comparison purposes. When most people talk about their compensation, they do not typically include the employer share of FICA payments. I argue that MPSERS is similar enough to Social Security that it is misleading to include current district contributions into measures of teacher "compensation." Particularly when the district contribution rate is determined by the current cost of retiree health care, and the unfunded liability of the pension system, rather than anything to do with current employees.

AlphaAlpha

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 9:08 p.m.

Owlnight - thanks for answering the question promptly. Busy day... Mr. Norton - 2nd polite request: how long until teachers are vested? Likely 5 years or less, like most folks. After that, it's 'Yours, all yours' so to speak. Thank you.

DonBee

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 3:24 p.m.

David Jessie - 12 Noon came and went. Voting by the AAEA is done. Do we have access to a copy of the Tentative Agreement? Thank you in advance.

DonBee

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 3:14 p.m.

The US Department of Labor and the IRS both define compensation the same way. "Includes wages, salaries, and employer costs for employee benefits." I would assume anyone paying taxes in the US or employing people in the US would do the same, if they wanted to comply with Federal Regulations.

Jimmy Olsen

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 11:33 a.m.

@Mr. Ghost In the link you provided there is another section that contains this: Different types of compensation include: Base Pay Commissions Overtime Pay Bonuses, Profit Sharing, Merit Pay Stock Options Travel/Meal/Housing Allowance Benefits including: dental, insurance, medical, vacation, leaves, retirement, taxes... It is all semantics...let's just call it "total compensation" Ball is in your court

DonBee

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 11 a.m.

Mr. Norton - This is no different than any other defined benefit pension. Look at GM's salaried employees pensions. Each year from 2004 to 2009, GM changed the rules for the medical and dental benefits. Now with the bankruptcy, there are even larger changes. If you depart a company and you have not vested, you have only your contributions. Same for 401K and 403B plans. Most people will not retire with the benefits they were promised when they joined a company. Up until now Teachers and State Employees have been protected. It still counts in the company's budget as a cost and by the IRS as indirect compensation to the employee. The fact that the rules may change is a fact of life that most of us have to deal with. I sorry that it will impact the teachers. The good news is right now they are still better off than the retired salaried employees of Chrysler and GM.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 8:14 a.m.

One of the big issues here (with regard to "compensation") is how to treat the district's contributions to the state teacher pension plan (MPSERS). On the one hand, it supports a retirement system for teachers, with certain benefits. On the other hand, those benefits can be changed before retirement at any time by the state Legislature. Lastly, the district's contributions to MPSERS are very much like employer contributions to Social Security and Medicare: they do not "belong" to the individual employee, but instead go toward keeping the system afloat. Unlike 401k's, if a teacher leaves the system in Michigan before vesting, they can take nothing with them except their own personal contributions (which were deducted from their take-home salary). In that sense, the district contributions are not benefits that the employee can turn into cash in any way. I agree with aataxpayer: if we want to focus on the cost to the district, then total cost of employment is the appropriate measure. But when people talk about "compensation," they usually mean direct pay and benefits which go directly to the employee (like health). Not too many people feel that their employer's contribution to FICA counts as part of their personal compensation.

Rork Kuick

Fri, Jun 18, 2010 : 7:24 a.m.

Ghost, you are usually good, but quibbling about definitions a bit now: heath care and retirement moneys do matter, and costs, if fairly calculated, can be a fair basis of comparison. Alpha: where does your AAPS $101,227.92 data comes from?

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 10:35 p.m.

And BLS, AAPS, and, perhaps most notably, FASB, the Financial Accounting Standards Board.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 10:16 p.m.

Moe, Larry, and Shemp agree that employee compensation and employer cost are the same thing. Well, then, it must be true! Good Night and Good Luck

stunhsif

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 8:36 p.m.

"cost and compensation". To the employee receiving the paycheck they are very different. To the entity or company paying that employee they are one in the same. An employee only get their salary but the company has to pay all the other payroll taxes, matching retirement contributions ( wish I had that), health and welfare,pension costs etc. So obviously to the entity paying the employee, cost and total compensation are one in the same. Why is it so difficult for some to understand this?

DonBee

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 6:23 p.m.

If the step table were the only way that Teachers got salary, then I might want to agree that $87,774 in salary was the maximum, but it is not. This is the actual top step number in the contract on page 107. There are pages and pages of how to earn points and extra pay. (this section of the contract starts on page 108 and runs thru page 124. So I suspect there is at least 1 teacher that earns in excess of $87,000. Then there are sections 7.134.3, 7.138.1 and others scattered through the contract that offer more money. I think the teachers desire this money, don't get me wrong, but... To point to the step table as the only place to look for direct compensation is - to quote another poster: "Bogus numbers combined with dissembling language"

Andrew Smith

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 5:57 p.m.

To resolve short-term and long-term budget difficulties, and create a system which is viable and sustainable for a number of years into the future, we need cuts which are not tactical, but rather strategic.

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 5:28 p.m.

There is no difference. While you may not be able to spend your fringe benefits this week, that money is yours; it is for you and you alone. Your retirement benefits, your various payroll taxes, all of that money is for you. And you alone. Perhaps you feel that because you can't spend it now, it doesn't count, but it does count. The BLS knows this, your AAPS CFO knows this, anyone who has even basic accounting or finance knowledge knows likewise. That obviously is not how you feel, or perhaps how you want others to feel, and you likely wish it were otherwise, but those are basic accounting principles, and the rules the world plays by.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

Alphaalpha, You continue to dissemble. Compensation and cost are two very different things. A fair-minded and semi-intelligent person would not equate the two. Nuff said. Good Night and Good Luck

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 4:10 p.m.

Or, to quote Mr. Jesse: "David Jesse AnnArbor.com Staff Posted 2 days ago For those looking at the cost of average teacher compensation, I've heard Robert Allen, the district's CFO, say several times that they plan for the cost of a teacher being about $100,000. some are over that, others are below that, but that's the ballpark figure the district uses in their conversations."

AlphaAlpha

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 4:03 p.m.

Well. Let us be perfectly clear, because this point is very important: AAPS teacher total compensation is 182.5% of the average civilian total compensation.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : noon

"AAPS teachers earn 182.5% of the average civilian compensation." Bogus numbers combined with dissembling language. Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 8:59 a.m.

OK, let's try this. Alphaalpha is presenting bogus data. He continually claims the average AAPS teacher "earns" (check the verbiage in his last post) $101,000. "Bogus" is the kindest word that can be used to describe that claim. The top of the scale on the current pay table at AAPS is a teacher w/14 or more years' experience who has a Ph.D. I am quite certain there are very few of those in AAPS and they EARN just over $87,000/year. It is therefore a fair assumption that the average AAPS teacher EARNS well under $87,000/year. Alphaalpha keeps using the "costs" of hiring a teacher and calls it "earnings". This is indeed "bogus" and it is dissembling. Good Night and Good Luck

Dave Warner

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 8:21 a.m.

My spouse is an AAPS teacher. What we find frustrating is that it has so far been impossible for her to read the TA. The only opportunity offered to do so to my knowledge has been to log into the AAEA web site as a member. This would be fine, except the web site is not functional and has not allowed a log-in since the email went out. The main web site is not even accessible at present. Will this persist? I think it is pretty disappointing and unacceptable.

local

Thu, Jun 17, 2010 : 6:11 a.m.

aatax@ teachers taking a cut is only going to save those being laid off. The district isn't going to hire back 90 teachers to replace those retiring. So the district has made the decision to cut some electives, some teachers will gain a few kids, etc... So you can say that we are losing 8% of our teachers, but the plan was never to replace them. The layoffs would have made that number higher, which won't happen now if teachers ratify this agreement. Teachers could agree to 8% pay cuts, and we still would lose those 90 retired teachers who wouldn't be replaced. My early statement was representing the fact that we could probably save those laid off by placing them into positions off those retiring (and moving teachers around based on certifications). We should know by Friday night/Saturday morning, teachers vote today and tomorrow till noon.

AlphaAlpha

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.

Reality check time. Here are the latest BLS figures, so that we may recognize where AAPS earnings are relative to two other groups, all private workers, and all government workers: September 2009 BLS Employer Costs For Employee Compensation. "Employer costs for employee compensation averaged $29.71 per hour worked in March 2010, the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported today. Wages and salaries averaged $20.67 per hour worked and accounted for 69.6 percent of these costs, while benefits averaged $9.04 and accounted for the remaining 30.4 percent. Total employer compensation costs for private industry workers averaged $27.73 per hour worked in March 2010. Total employer compensation costs for State and local government workers averaged $39.81 per hour worked in March 2010." To summarize: $39.81 per hour for all government workers $27.73 per hour for lowly civilians. $39.81 x 2000 = $79,620 per year. $27.73 x 2000 = $55,460 per year. AAPS teachers = $101,227.92 per year total compensation. AAPS teachers earn 182.5% of the average civilian compensation.

KidsRtheFuture

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 3:26 p.m.

I am not a teacher, though I know and appreciate many For those of you who support teachersThank You! For those who continually disparage teachers, consider this. Out of a typical 250 working day year (assuming 2 weeks vacation), Michigan teachers are required to work 190 days. All but about 5 of these days are in the classroom, in front of students. K-6 teachers typically have 20 24 students all day, and believe me, keeping the attention of twenty 6-12 year olds is not easy. Secondary teachers have anywhere from 25 to 35 and occasionally up to 40 students per class and teach 5 classes in a day (anywhere from 125 175 students) They have a 6th free period of approximately 50 minutes to plan for all of those classes. If you think their day ends when the kids go home, you obviously know little about teaching. Planning lessons, creating tests, and grading tests, papers, projects, etc. for 125 175 students even if you only have one assignment every two or three weeks takes an enormous amount of time. Most evenings and weekends include some amount of keeping up with grading as well as additional planning for instructional time in front of the class. It amazes me that so many people are fine with other professionals (doctors, lawyers, engineers, accountants, business managers, IT professions, etc.) making 6 figures, but complain that the people educating our children - ensuring an educated citizenry for the future of our country - might happen to make more than a retail clerk who happens to hold a masters degree! The biggest problem with our country at this point in history is that everyone wants all the benefits of big government (nice roads, healthy water, clean environment, beautiful parks, sewage systems, fire and police protection, sidewalks, garbage collection, free museums, a strong military, consumer protection, social security, health care, FREE EDUCATION, I could go on and on), but no one wants to pay for it! Get real people, these things cost money. Yes, there is corruption and waste, but at this point at least in Michigan most of the waste has already been cut. Theres no fat leftthe next cuts will be to bone (and muscle and vital organs). And yes, there are poor teachers who do as little work as they can, but having many connections to the A2 school system and three kids enrolled, I know that these are really few and far between. And by the way, teachers have several options for health care, all but one of which require employees to pay for part of them. How bout we give em a brake!!

DonBee

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 1:20 p.m.

Steve - Normally I would agree with you. I follow a number of bills in Congress and normally they are available. In the case of the Health Care bill, it was not available even in electronic form until after it was signed. I checked over and over. There were placeholders in the on line versions up until the day after signature. I have 20 or 30 version that were used along the way, but what was voted on, was not released until after it was signed. Then of course there were changes that were voted on by a completely different route and those changes were not published until a day after the voting was done in the Senate. If you want to have fun, figure out when the 1099 provision was added to the Health Care bill. As to the AAEA agreement, it would be a pleasant surprise if it was made available on Friday after voting closes.

Steve Norton, MIPFS

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 11:57 a.m.

Just a few words about accessibility: I would be very surprised if the TA were not made public when (and if) the AAEA ratifies it. I don't see how the school board can bring it to a vote without making public what they are voting on. On the other hand, I can understand why the AAEA leadership might want to have their internal discussion out of the limelight. I'm sure that some members will be unhappy with the proposed agreement, and they need to work this out on their own. Finally, to DonBee and others: sometimes legislation works like that, but not quite as you describe. The bill must be published as passed by the Congress (or legislature), though there can be last-minute floor amendments up until that happens. So the health care bill was available as soon as it came from conference and was passed by both houses. Moreover, the Kaiser Family Foundation had a web site which tracked the various versions of the bill and their important differences. It was very complex for even an informed citizen, but the information was there. The failings were in the bulk of the news media who did not bother doing a good job of sifting through the available information to draw a comprehensible picture. Democratic bodies do not operate in secret. But that doesn't mean that easy-to-understand information is always available served on a platter. That's what political leadership, and a free press, is for.

DonBee

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 9:25 a.m.

I look forward to the day I can read the contract. I doubt the preliminary agreement will be public before the school board votes on it. No big deal, the Health Care bill was not available to an average citizen to read until it was signed into law.

local

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 6:04 a.m.

aataxpayer@ you say we would have to take a big hit in teachers because teachers aren't willing to give back. Here are the numbers, 90 layoffs, with an estimated 90-100 retirements in Ann Arbor. When all is said and done, it looks like it might be a wash. Here is what I am hearing: if teachers agree to this contract there is a pay cut in it. Lets say the cut is 1/2 of what the district wanted from them, so 2% (sorry you couldn't get the full 4% that you might have wanted) teachers next year in Ann Arbor will be losing a total of around 5% with state retirement included. As well as, paying more for insurances if they chose specific health plans. Sounds like teachers are doing there part to help out.

AACity12

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 4:27 a.m.

Maybe they should just volunteer their time. Would that make you happy AA?

Jeremy

Wed, Jun 16, 2010 : 1:47 a.m.

Yep your right. Every USMC infantry grunt has a PhD in butt kicking.

seedocks

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 11:13 p.m.

To answer the post by skfina2 I actually work with three different people with advanced degrees that are retail store workers in management making less than 50,000 salary a year. Two with masters and one with two masters. I think we should try to keep the teachers by raising the amount they have to pay for health insurance. I think it is unacceptable that some of the teachers pay nothing or under 100 dollars a month for healthcare. My co workers and I pay over 200 dollars a month to get medical coverage that is 80/20 and this is no dental or eye care. I just think if all the teachers paid like 25-50 more dollars a month the cost to the district would be much smaller. I don't know maybe someone out there has run the numbers. I just think it is the health care that keeps us from keeping the teachers. The cost to the district must be huge.

sh1

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:22 p.m.

Bruno Uno, can you give examples of the "militancy" of the union in this current TA?

skfina2

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:21 p.m.

Let's look at numbers. The teachers at the top of the pay scale in my district, Plymouth-Canton (who are also in contract negotiations this year), haven't gotten a raise since 2006, I believe. Suppose one of those teachers made $75,000 that year, and is still making it this year. Using the Consumer Price Index and looking at real, not nominal, dollars, what cost $75,000 in 2006 now costs $81,104.54. So actually, that teacher has seen a 7.5% decrease in purchasing power (6104.54/81104.54). And now on top of that there is a 3% increase in contributions towards retirement, which makes the total decrease in pay, over 4 years, of over 10%. And now we're supposed to take another hit by taking another reduction in pay? Seriously? Why aren't we looking at increasing sources of income, like upping the state income tax rate on the wealthy, or adding a 2% tax to services, instead of trying to decrease spending? Why do the people who educate your children have to take the hit for the whole state funding mess? (The same goes for the people who keep your children safe, like police officers and firefighters.) Yes, there are some bad apples in the teacher pie. But most of us are caring, hardworking, and passionate about our careers. That's why we do what we do. Come on, nobody goes into teaching for the money, despite what some of the teacher-bashers think. And for those of you who think that $75,000 is a lot for a teacher to be making, can you think of any field where someone with an advanced degree and over 20 years of success on the job makes less than that? While you're reading online newspapers, you should check out Monday's editorial in the New York Times, entitled Washington's Teachers' Contract. The url is http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/14/opinion/14mon4.html?ref=editorials. Bring it on.

bruno_uno

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 9:15 p.m.

"Both Superintendent Todd Roberts and Satchwell have repeatedly said they hoped to come to some sort of agreement that would allow all the teachers to be recalled" oh what a feeling! maybe next contract Michiganders, Love- The most militant union in the nation!!!

treetowncartel

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:54 p.m.

I forgot to add if you want to be privy to the negotiations either run and get elected to the board, get a Job in administration, or become a public school employee, which in turn allows participation in the union and possibly negotiations. You can also attend board meeetungs and participate in the public commentary section if you want to inform the elected officials of your concerns.

treetowncartel

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:47 p.m.

I agree to disagree. You vote for trusteees, they are the representatives of the consensus. If you don't like the outcome either vote with your feet and move, or vote early and vote often. Common sense and the state constitution both support the notion that micromanagement by the suffrage is not appropriate in this instance.

sh1

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 8:44 p.m.

"My point is, why are we still negotiating? The teachers have perfect benefits, nice pay, work 168 days and do not have to teach. What else can we give?" What else can you give? How about a little objectivity? Your description of teaching is so negative that your point gets diluted.

glacialerratic

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 6:16 p.m.

What's happening to the Ann Arbor Educational Foundation's efforts to raise a million dollars by the end of July? Lots of yard signs have appeared. What's the money going to be used for? Teachers? I've not heard any specifics.

David Jesse

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 5:48 p.m.

@aataxpayer: i have asked for details on the contract and will continue to do so. I'll look for the details whereever I can.

A Voice of Reason

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 5:06 p.m.

Well, seems like someone would leak the details of the contract.

A Voice of Reason

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:59 p.m.

My point is, why are we still negotiating? The teachers have perfect benefits, nice pay, work 168 days and do not have to teach. What else can we give?

sh1

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:57 p.m.

@Voice of Reason: Your information is not accurate. Save your comments until you understand the size of the concessions teachers will be voting on.

InsideTheHall

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:55 p.m.

Spot on Kent. I guess Obama transparency is alive and well within the A2 teachers union. If there is not a 7% cost down on the total package the District did not do their job.

treetowncartel

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:45 p.m.

Labor negotiations are carved out in the Open Meetings Act and the Freedom of Information Act.The discussions are also covered under the Michigan Public Employers Labor Relations ACt. Why is that you might ask? Because part of the negotiation process is being able to meet with your team and not have it disclosed, it works well for both management and labor. We live in a predominantly consensus drive society, you voted for representatives to go bargain for you if you were the taxpayer, and if you were in the union. In some instances you could wear both hats, e.g. live in the district and pay taxes and be in the union.Does that mean you should privy to the negotiation strategies for both sides? Also, if the negotiations were not done by consensus, but instead everyone was allowed in the room, well would be an excercise in futility. Not only that, but they would have to be held at a very large conference center, on the taxpayer's dime. I think Today's technology has created this frenzy for I have to know now. Why is there be a need to disclose the contract until both sides have ratified it? It is what it is.

A Voice of Reason

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 4:32 p.m.

We already know that the teachers are getting two more vacation days, no changes in health benefits, no step increase and no cost of living adjustment (as everyone else is experiencing). Who is bargining for the district? I think they are on the MEA's payroll. We would rather lay off teachers then all take a small pay cut. When did education stop being about the children and about the adults. The school board should be fired, the MEA and AAEA (including Brit) should be embarrassed to live off the back of our kids. SHAME on YOU All! And we still cannot fire the bad teachers.

Kent2525

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 2:42 p.m.

Sounds like a "we wont know whats in the bill until we pass it" type of deal. Thanks miss Nancy Pelosi.

Kent2525

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 2:39 p.m.

My members and the board need to be able to consult without a lot of comment from the public, Satchwell said. Once it has been passed, we will open it up for everyone to look at and comment on. Why is it that public workers need to hide their dealings with the public who acutally pay the way?

DonBee

Tue, Jun 15, 2010 : 1:19 p.m.

Congratulations - I hope that the agreement is good for teachers who did not get lay off notices, those that did (e.g. they get recalled) and the students. One correction to the story - They did not get a raise, but if they moved on the step table, they got their step. So it was not a complete freeze in wages for some of the teachers. The step table rewards teachers for both time in service (years with the district) and achievement in education (e.g. a master's degree).