MEA Votes E-Newsletter -- May 25, 2010 - Special Edition
5 percent pay cut proposal headed to full Senate
Tell your senator to vote NO
The Senate Reforms and Restructuring Committee today passed Senate Joint Resolution U, a proposed constitutional amendment to cut the pay of all public employees in the state by 5 percent. The proposal would also mandate a three-year wage freeze.Senate leaders may try to pass the measure soon, so your URGENT help is needed to defeat this proposal. Please contact your state senator TODAY and tell them to vote NO.
If Senate Joint Resolution U receives a two-thirds majority in the Senate and House as required, it will go on the August primary ballot for voters to decide. If approved by voters, it would be implemented Oct. 1.
The Senate panel vote is the latest attack on public employees.
Today's vote comes less than two weeks after passage of legislation that gives a small incentive for public school employees who retire this year. The retirement legislation also requires those who continue to work to contribute an additional 3 percent of their salary for retiree health care.
If you're tired of the attacks, check out MEA's Enough is Enough campaign. And, plan to join other public school employees at a June 24 Capitol rally.
And, don't forget: Contact your senator today. Tell him/her to say NO to Senate Joint Resolution U.
Enough is Enough!
This just makes me want to cry. Things are tight everywhere, but it seems that the good old public school teacher can just be beat up on again and again and again. I don't make that much money, really I don't (and please, before some of you start, I do not just work six hours a day, nine months a year. I average a nine hour a day, and work all summer to ensure that the next school year will be successful). I am already going to see a decrease in my salary even before the next school year starts because I will now pay 6.9% of my salary into a retiree health care fund that is not guaranteed to even be there for me when I retire. One of the reasons for the passage of the legislation that gives a small incentive for public school employees to retire is to open up spots for new teachers so they will not leave the state. Someone's kidding us right? This new legislation is going to make new teachers want to teach in Michigan? My theory is that like everything else in this country, there are people who want educating our children to be a "for profit business." In order to make that happen it will be necessary to make the present system so unattractive that educators will be willing to do anything to make a decent salary and be treated with some dignity. "All" children won't receive an equal education under this new system so the rich will get richer, the poor will get poorer, and the middle class will cease to exist. This is not the time to think that everything will be okay, this is the time to realize that we are being led in the wrong direction! Oh, and I still wonder what cuts the members of the legislature are taking in order to balance the budget.
Rosemary
I don't like how you are making this a boo-hoo issue for teachers alone. There are more people employed by the state of Michigan than just teachers. In fact, and I'm just guessing, but I would venture that teachers actually make up a less than significant portion of the total state employment population. I don't hear you trumpeting the case of the thousands of other jobs that are going to be affected by this. Also, you say you don't make a lot of money. In fact, a direct quote would be "I don't make that much money". Really? a quick search on the internet yielded these results. A teacher in Michigan, with a bachelors degree makes roughly $37,437.84 a year. After six years that same person makes $48,566.88. Now, let’s look at the salary for someone with a masters. Starting out, that person makes around $39,087.36 and after six years on the job makes, now I'm just guessing here, but $50,780.16. Add to that the supplements and incentives of around $6000 a year and you're looking at a paltry $45,000 - $56-000 a year. I mean, who can live on that? You should go downtown (and I mean Detroit and not Plymouth) and tell some of the people you encounter what you are forced to live on. I mean the nerve of those people. And they want to take 5%. How, in the world are you suppose to go from $45,000 to 42,750 a year (I'm assuming that you are a teacher with a Bachelors degree over six years and not a tenured person with a masters in which case your bitching about losing 5% would seem even more absurd). Your whining is further amplified by the fact that you offer no concrete explanation as to what the funds saved by this overhaul are slotted for. I mean, the state of Michigan is in a free fall. If these funds are going to be used to boost or stimulate the economy (and I use that term loosely after the joke that the federal stimulus was) why are you objecting? Come with some facts. Otherwise you just sound like some entitled snob sitting on your hill bitching because you have nothing better to do.
ReplyDeleteYou know who I feel bad for? The parent working a graveyard janitor shift at any of the state run agencies trying to do the right thing and provide for his or her kids who makes $12 a hour. Now that is a significant loss. To me, it seems like people bitching about losing $2000 when they make $45,000 (and again, I'm assuming that you are a teacher with a Bachelors degree over six years and not a tenured person with a masters) are only into making educating MY children a for profit business.
Well, I can't even address your argument at this point as the tone of your comment has me thrown for a loop! You are so angry, settle down. I'll get back to you.
ReplyDeleteIt seems that the whole tone of your log is anger and passion. So I was just following along.
ReplyDeleteI might have gotten a little revved up at the end, but your comment is venomous from the beginning. You have a right to your opinion, and I respect that. I created this blog to write about things that I don't agree with, or don't understand, or that just make me question the sanity of the human race, and I was hoping for feedback. I was, however, hoping it would be a dialogue with respectful discourse and not attacks on my opinions. Now to address your disagreements with my stance. You are correct in that this senate joint resolution does not just affect teachers, however, we are not insignificant in number. You are also correct that the starting salary for teachers is attractive. A young person graduating with a bachelor's degree who will begin a job at $37,000 or $38,000 should be ecstatic, and then earning a master's degree and enjoying the fruits of their labor with a pay increase, how wonderful! That is, however, gross income before taxes and dues, so the net pay is significantly decreased. Now deduct the out of pocket expenses for classroom supplies, and continuing, mandated education and the salary doesn't look quite as great as it did that first year. Now consider that the top salary caps out and the teacher who has taught thirty years in the district at the highest step is earning the same as the teacher who has taught eleven years. So I say again, I don't make that much money. But the point is, a teacher's contract or any public employee's contract, should guarantee their wage and the legislature should not be able to vote to amend the state constitution to cut pay and disallow any hearings on the amendment. It simply isn't right. The next thing you say is very irritating, if someone refers to "downtown" I immediately know they mean downtown Detroit, being condescending is not going to win any arguments. The next thing you say after that is even more irritating, why would you assume that I have only a bachelor's degree and am not tenured? You know who I am! Of course I am tenured, I have been in my district a long time, and yes I have a Master's degree. I am at the top of the pay scale and I am not running away with my tail between my legs ashamed that I don't want to give up 5% of my earnings on top of the 3% that is an increase from the 3.9% I already pay out of my earnings. Why should I have to offer a concrete explanation for what the money saved by this resolution will be slotted for? Isn't that the job of the people in Lansing? Actually, I would like an answer to that question as well. I too feel tremendously sorry for those in a worse situation than me. Those who make less and have even more financial obligations will truly suffer, as will the economy as none of us will spend freely. All the more reason why this resolution should never make the August ballot. I don't get your last line at all. Finally, I stated in my last line in my blog that I wondered what cuts the members of the state legislature were willing to make, and it dawned on me today that they are public employees! So good thing they gave themselves a 38% pay raise (by refusing to vote on it), because now they have to give 5% back. I have read the resolution, and legal language is difficult to decipher, bet Mike Bishop put a loophole in it. Call me jaded.
ReplyDelete