In the last couple weeks, we’ve seen the dispiriting spectacle of layoff notices going to nearly 500 Milwaukee Public Schools teachers. This includes some excellent ones let go simply because they have less seniority. This will mean even bigger average class sizes – and further declines in quality – for a district already struggling badly. And a clear culprit is the teachers union.
The union has always been more concerned about its veteran teachers, more worried about pensions than starting salaries for new teachers. Union officials have argued that this “career ladder” will attract new teachers, but that’s nonsense: What twentysomething teacher is thinking about a retirement that is at least 30 years away? Milwaukee teachers were already part of the excellent state pension system, yet back in the late 1990s, the union successfully pushed for an unneeded, supplementary plan that used local tax dollars to sweeten the pension for a select group of long-term teachers.
MPS officials argue that none of the recent layoffs would have been necessary if the union would agree to switch from its Aetna insurance plan to a lower-cost plan offered through United Healthcare. This could save the district some $48 million, enough to prevent any job layoffs for teachers, school board president Michael Bonds claims. “I’m not aware of any place in the nation that pays 100 percent of teachers’ health care benefits and doesn’t require a contribution from those who choose to take a more expensive plan,” Bonds told the press.
Union officials contend these savings are exaggerated and that the MPS administration has never made a formal offer to trade fewer layoffs for health insurance cuts. “We are ready and willing to work with them again if they return to the bargaining table with the facts – not the hype,” says Pat O’Mahar, interim union executive director.
But for more than a year, departing MPS Superintendent William Andrekopoulos has been pushing for the union to consider a cheaper health insurance, as have some board members and even Mayor Tom Barrett. It’s hardly a mystery that MPS officials desire such a change. Yet we are supposed to believe they wouldn’t discuss this at the bargaining table?
That seems quite unlikely, but if O’Mahar is right, why doesn’t the union call the bluff of MPS officials and make their own offer? Wouldn’t this make more sense than letting its younger teachers get thrown on the street? The union’s fear, I’m sure, is that once the Aetna plan is lost, it will never be regained. And better to have the younger teachers lose their jobs than have its older teachers contribute to their health insurance.
Other teachers unions seem a little more concerned about all their members. Just a few months ago, the union for Whitefish Bay’s teachers agreed to a plan that raised salaries across the board, and guaranteed a starting salary of $35,200. In return, the union agreed that its members would pay 8 percent of the costs of their health insurance plan.
Granted, the choices for Whitefish Bay are more attractive because the budget is in less trouble. But a key reason the MPS choices are so bad is because benefits are out of control.
There has never been much evidence the Milwaukee union cares about reining in the costs of these benefits. O’Mahar urges MPS officials to push for a fairer state funding formula for the schools. But that could take years to accomplish – and may never happen. In the meantime, MPS will probably have to lay off more teachers next year – and the next – with devastating consequences in the classroom. At what point will the union decide it’s not acceptable to throw more Milwaukee teachers out of work and better to have all teachers contribute to budget cuts through changes in the health insurance plan?
Is Walker Right About State Pensions?
Is Scott Walker at the crest of a national wave? A Sunday New York Times story reported that at least seven states are considering changes to trim pensions for state employees. Walker has proposed to save the state $176 million per year by requiring state employees to contribute toward their pension plans.
It is a substantive suggestion, and those are rare in political races. But I’d offer several reasons why this may not be the best way to go.
1. Wisconsin has one of the best-run pension systems in the country. Unlike in states such as Illinois, the pension system here has been run responsibly and is quite unlikely to ever run short of money.
2. Walker can’t simply do this by fiat but must negotiate with the state employees unions, and that means giving up other things to gain the pension contribution. It’s not a given that this is the most cost-effective measure for the state to bargain for in negotiations.
3. Walker’s approach may punish all employees for the greedy few. The only clear problem with the state pension is employees who run up their pension benefits by working overtime in their last years to drive up the final average salary by which their pension is computed. This is a distortion of the system, and it’s possible the union could be persuaded to consider changes attacking this problem. Illinois, for instance, is capping pensions at $106,800. This kind of approach would protect all employees while trimming benefits for a small group of top dogs.
4. Walker’s approach in Milwaukee County has been a willingness to let the parks and county bus systems decline, the courthouse go dirty and other programs to suffer, in order to cut costs. That has included threatening furloughs to push the unions into wage and benefits givebacks. But Walker inherited a government with one of the most lucrative pension plans in the nation. There is no evidence the state government is in any way comparable. In fact, it has fewer employees per capita than the average state, as the Wisconsin Taxpayers Alliance has found. A push to furlough or lay off employees may simply make state government less efficient – and less fair to its employees. And that ultimately could affect the state’s ability to recruit good workers.
The Buzz
The dissatisfaction with Waukesha Mayor Jeff Scrima extends to conservatives like radio talker Mark Belling and blogger James Wigderson. The latter offered a column criticizing Scrima for promising to give half his salary back to the city and instead giving it to a foundation. Why would Scrima do this? Because he gets a big tax write-off for a charitable contribution, which he wouldn’t get if he gives it back to the city.
-Word has it that Milwaukee School Board member Terry Falk, who now represents the 8th District on the city’s South Side, will challenge Bruce Thompson, the incumbent “at-large,” or citywide board member. This will set up a classic contest between a liberal-leaning school choice opponent who will be endorsed by the teachers union (Falk) vs. a conservative-leaning choice supporter who’ll be backed by the business community (Thompson).
-A new study reported in NewsBuzz finds most donations to state legislators come from outside the district – and the percentage is even higher for Democrats.
-And Pressroom Buzz slaps the Racine Journal Times for overhyped headlines on, gasp, FoodShare fraud.
