Teacher upset she can’t retire at 47

[dorminWS]

http://www.humanevents.com/2012/04/19/t ... ire-at-47/

[davasmith]

When did teachers start making 70,000 dollars a year?

[ Post made via Mobile Device ]

[Reverenddel]

Wait...what? AND summers off?!!?

[ShotgunBlast]

The entitlement mentality has reached a new low.

[SHMIV]

That's a ridiculous teacher. I'm glad she's not teaching my son.

[dorminWS]

It's no worse than the faculty at U Va expecting to dictate to the Board of Visitors that they should reinstate the President they just parted company with because the faculty likes her. Much of the faculty at most colleges and universities are totally out of touch with reality. On top of that they have inflated opinions of their self worth and an outrageous sense of entitlement. Faculty at primary and secondary schools aspire to be like faculty at colleges. It scares me how ill-qualified many teachers are to form the minds of our youth.

[Kreutz]

Though I hate public unions, the article is missing a huge piece of info; the content of her contract. She may very well have been to do what she had hoped under it.

Leon Drolet, chairman of the Michigan Taxpayers Alliance, called List’s comments “amazing.”

“Wow. They have reached the politicians’ level of entitlement,” Drolet said. “She thinks she is entitled to retire at 47? Holy smokes. I don’t know what more to say to that. A government employee thinking that 47 is a reasonable expectation to retire shows just how deep inside their own bubble they live, insulated from the real world.”

Having enlisted in the Army at 17 I'd have been eligible for retirement at age 37 under the DoD rules, would I have been guilty of an "entitlement complex" as well?

As far as teachers making 70k; not where I'm from. Low 100k range. Cops and even prison guards can clear 200k if they rig their OT right. Thats why NY has crushing taxes.

[Riposite]

heck it may have been allowed in her contract (though teachers contracts tend to run for 3-5 years and get renegotiated so the union may have given it up); but the issue is that the public sector gets such contract in the first place. that would be 20 more years of her retirement being funded without her contributing to the work force-sure it may be cheaper to hire a new teacher might make less than she will in those twenty years but i wonder if it is cheaper to hiree a new teacher and pay out her pension for twenty years

compared to the arm forces _ I think part of why they get the early retirement is a) you get poop pay while you are in and enlisted, I mean doesn't it work out to less than minimum wage
and b) at times the government decides it wants to nation build or test an a-bomb and really that can ruin your day

As a fellow former NYer i had an aunt who was a teacher, who taught 2nd grade for 30 years and retired in her early 50s and her pension pay out was 100k and that was 70% of her last years pay ...
With increasing life spans we can not afford to be so generous-it was one thing to pay people a pension at 65 when they average life expectancy was early 70s, but to start paying out int he 40s when they can live to their 80s?
The whole system is a big ponzi scheme and it's coming due : (

[papasan]

she was promised one thing and got another, I would be pissed too.

[dorminWS]

she was promised one thing and got another, I would be pissed too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, but the union must have known it was overpromising just the same as the school district did. I could hold a gun to your headf until you promised me the moon with a ribbon around it; but would I be justified in being mad when you didn't deliver?

[Diomed]

It scares me how ill-qualified many teachers are to form the minds of our youth.

Oh, they're entirely qualified to form the minds of the youth. And they do a stellar job of it too, since that's what all the teacher's colleges are set up to do. It's just that the goals of the system they serve are rather different than the ones most normal, unsuspecting people believe are the goals of the system - so what comes out looks like failure to those people, but to the folks running the show, is exactly what is supposed to come out: illiterate dullards who can't think for themselves and are incapable of being adults.

As an example, literacy has been dropping for over half a century, in spite of having vast amounts of attention, concern, and money lavished on literacy programs in schools. The simple fact of the matter is that it's not hard to teach children to read, it's not even hard to teach adults to read. Why, then, can't children read?

[papasan]

she was promised one thing and got another, I would be pissed too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, but the union must have known it was overpromising just the same as the school district did. I could hold a gun to your headf until you promised me the moon with a ribbon around it; but would I be justified in being mad when you didn't deliver?

I'm kind of doubting she held a gun to anyone's head when she was informed about the job's bennies... sorry man, maybe the union shouldn't have made the offer but that doesn't change the fact that what she signed up for and what she's getting are two different things. if that was the case hold the union liable, not the teacher.

[Riposite]

no but traditionally contracts are only good for 3-4 years, and it is her Union that renegotiates them so
a) that is who her beef is with and she should of understood that every time they renegotiate it things can change
b) as educator one would hope she'd grasp the simple concept that the public can not support such onerous and out sized contracts any more - prima facie in this day and age where people are finding they need to work to 70 and still won't have a reliable retirement, where incomes are shrinking while expenses go up- to expect the public to fund her contract in such a way she can retire in her 40s and live comfortably goes beyond foolish into a certain degree of malicous selfishness

[papasan]

the "I have to work until I'm 70, so should everyone else" attitude? really?

yes, if the original contract said "this contract is null and void in 3y and we'll renegotiate" then I would agree with the sentiment. I didn't read that anywhere in the article. are you suggesting that ALL contracts should be renegotiated after 3-5y? please convince my mortgage company of this idea...

you maybe miss-understanding me. I know that the crushing burden of pensions is a huge contributing factor to the downfall of companies like GM. but the bottom line is that they made those promises and they should honor them to the best of their ability.

[Riposite]

most union contracts, whether teachers or airplane pilots etc , only cover a set amount of years, they aren't a one time lifetime employment contract, they tend to be 3year to 5 year periods (or longer but people don;t get 60 year work contracts ), that are periodically reneogtiated. Now if you retire in the window of one that covers you ,buy if you keep working you fall under the new one. it may seem unfair to a teacher that someone got way better benefits when they started and could retire at 40 and now when they are 40 it no longer works that way, but that is because most public sector contracts are basically ponzi schemes built upon the myth of an ever increasing tax base and prosperity. As the average person makes less, they have less to use to subsidize the public sector so naturally contracts are going to offer less and less, and the golden days are gone.
And as for the negotiated contract-well this is what the whole issue was in wisconsin, public officials whether school boards or local officials (or worse other public sector union employees) due the negotiation with these groups and they aren;'t using their money but rather it comes out of property taxes and the like, so lots of time in return for public support at the polls etc they promise away the future since it isn't their money etc.
I do think there is patently wrong with a person paid out of the public largesse feeling they should retire 20 years ahead of the national average and be supported by the public tax base.
If you want to be able to retire twenty years early work in the private sector develop your own business, take your own risk, and if you succeed then you can retire early on your own labor.

Of course I feel the converse is true, and investment bankers, stock brokers etc who invent derivatives and drive us all into financial ruin, or sacrifice long term healthy companies to outsourcing for a short term profit or commission on the feeding frenzy sure as hell shouldn't be getting bonus from public bail out money either.


To me the advantages of a public sector job like teaching -better vacation time , the abilty to mass negotiate benefits etc, longer longevity at the job balance out the lack of direct compensation parity. The problem is I think people want the safety of their public sector job, and all the perks but none of the risks private sector employees have.

And it boggles my mind how someone who basically works off our taxes can expect to retire 20 -25 years earlier than the people who pay the salary and expect them to take on those pension costs.


I have more sympathy for private sector unions as they have more of an incentive (well prior to Obama-funny how ford who didn't have the clout of the government got more concessions from the UAW then GM did with it's government appointed czar) to work with their employer in bad economic times to help maintain costs so they should push in good times for more compensation, and since their work directly ties to the profits of a company they are entitled in a way public sector employees are not-when you work in the public sector your well being is tied to the economic health of the public as a whole.

[Riposite]

look at it this way, let us say i teach in detroit, and i started in the hey day of the auto industry but now i want to retire early when we have record unemployment, people are fleeing the city etc. So the tax base is crippled, and since there are less people, the municipality needs to rasie the taxes on the remaining people to make up the short falls for its on going contributions to a pension fund, to pay for the life time health insurance etc. And these people paying, they were not the ones who negotiated the contract, that was some politcian who wanted the endorsement of the local teachers union.
In additon since the tax base is so low, even raising taxes won;'t be enough, so for new teachers i have to cut starting wages, I don't replace school equipment, and I don't repair buildings or offer sports or music , to raise money I let soft drink companies put concessions in the lunch rooms etc.


and people go well get the state and federal government to chip in, but then all that is doing is passing this cost on to everyone else in the state and the country (via taxes and bond debt)-who sure as hell never agreed to the contract.

[dorminWS]

look at it this way, let us say i teach in detroit, and i started in the hey day of the auto industry but now i want to retire early when we have record unemployment, people are fleeing the city etc. So the tax base is crippled, and since there are less people, the municipality needs to rasie the taxes on the remaining people to make up the short falls for its on going contributions to a pension fund, to pay for the life time health insurance etc. And these people paying, they were not the ones who negotiated the contract, that was some politcian who wanted the endorsement of the local teachers union.
In additon since the tax base is so low, even raising taxes won;'t be enough, so for new teachers i have to cut starting wages, I don't replace school equipment, and I don't repair buildings or offer sports or music , to raise money I let soft drink companies put concessions in the lunch rooms etc. and people go well get the state and federal government to chip in, but then all that is doing is passing this cost on to everyone else in the state and the country (via taxes and bond debt)-who sure as hell never agreed to the contract.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

For businesses and individuals, the remedy when you can't meet your obligations is bankruptcy. Then all contracts may be rejected by the bankrupt estate. The alternative to that is for the parties to those contracts to renegotiate them and make a deal the bankrupt can perform. I see no reason why that same thing shouldn't apply to rescue the poor taxpayers.

[Riposite]

For businesses and individuals, the remedy when you can't meet your obligations is bankruptcy. Then all contracts may be rejected by the bankrupt estate. The alternative to that is for the parties to those contracts to renegotiate them and make a deal the bankrupt can perform. I see no reason why that same thing shouldn't apply to rescue the poor taxpayers.

oh I agree, but the Unions don't like that cause that means they lose out, that's why they tend to support candidates who support bailouts and government take overs as opposed to that. That is the problem with public sector negotiating -one party has undue influence on the other, and other is negotiating with a 3rd party who can't intervene's money.



realistically teacher's salaries and benefits should be tied to the local standard of living. And in areas where that is not enough, these are probably the areas we as a whole society would benefit from being improved so then i could see State and Federal grants to supplement to attract and provide for education. But these things are done for the public trust-1) and i for one don't trust much of the people currently making decisions
and 2) I am not sure offering a teacher a contract that lets them retire at 70% pay at age 47 is something that is in the public's best interest or even improves the quality of education -heck it seems like it would encourage our best educators to leave the system early

[dorminWS]

Someone referenced the Wall Street manipulators above. In either case, it seems to me, we are talking about people who got too greedy and tried to extract more than the system could bear. In neither case do they deserve to be rescued at the public expense. If they exercised the bad judgment to have an irresponsible union, that was their mistake, too, I would be tempted to say. In many cases, they had no choice but to join a union even if they didn't want to do so. On the other hand, you can damn well bet the employer wouldn't have dealt with a union if he'd had a choice. It has been the policy of the US government since the early nineteen-thirties to encourage union membership. So we have the feds to thank for much of this kind of mess. But even so, it should be left to the unions, the workers, and the employers to sort out a deal using the resources available and without outside funds. The governments and the unions have already sucked all the fat out of the system over the last 4 or 5 decades. It's time for them to start playing an honest game at long last.

[Kreutz]

she was promised one thing and got another, I would be pissed too.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Yes, but the union must have known it was overpromising just the same as the school district did. I could hold a gun to your headf until you promised me the moon with a ribbon around it; but would I be justified in being mad when you didn't deliver?

Your example is of a contract signed under duress which is unenforceable. Its entirely possible (even probable given the power of public unions) her contract was entirely in good faith. In which case the district (and the taxpayer naturally) is on the hook.