Elmhurst Teachers Council Accepts Latest Contract Offer

Jim R April 4, 2012 at 06:55 pm

Teacher pensions are one of the biggest budget problems in the state. Teachers may retire while others must keep working to pay their benefits.

Citizen/Teacher April 4, 2012 at 07:37 pm

No different than other retirement systems where retirees are supported by those still in the labor force. The problem is that for decades the state borrowed from the teacher's system while teachers continued to pay their share.

Jim R April 4, 2012 at 07:48 pm

"The finding that most teachers do not pay into their own retirement funds sharply contradicts union claims that TRS members are paying their “fair share” to the state’s retirement system, and therefore pension reform should not be enacted."
http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4457

Jim R April 4, 2012 at 07:49 pm

"In fact, workers who retired between July 1, 2009 and June 30, 2010 after 30 or more years on the job could expect initial average annual benefit payments of:
•$68,208 in the State Universities Retirement System; •$65,109 in the Teachers’ Retirement System; or •$38,916 in the State Employees’ Retirement System." http://illinoispolicy.org/news/article.asp?ArticleSource=4523

Emily.D April 4, 2012 at 08:24 pm

That's not how it works, Jim. Teachers pay from every one of their paychecks into a pension fund. They fund their own pensions.... It's the state that's been making a mess of this situation. Let's not blame the teachers!

Emily.D April 4, 2012 at 08:25 pm

Jim R, You're acting as if you're jealous of teachers... You seem to have all of the answers... just the wrong ones.

Jim R April 4, 2012 at 08:56 pm

If you read my posts you will see the first one was my comments, the next two posts were quotes from other sources only supporting my comments. Am I jealous of the pensions, sure I am and who would not. For so many years teachers complained they were so underpaid, etc. which I believed for some time. More recently I have found that teachers mistakenly taught us math since now we can see how they have used us. By the way, thank you for helping to bring about the Illionois tax increase. Add another reason why Illinois is the next to the last state to retire - thank your local teacher.

Dave April 4, 2012 at 10:18 pm

The fact remains that because of phenomenal mismanagement by the legislature over the years -- many members of which were bought lock, stock and barrel by the teacher's unions, by the way -- the taxpayers are now left holding the bag. Naturally that is going to give rise to some resentment.

nana April 4, 2012 at 11:47 pm

Wow, Jim R. Here we go again. Teachers pay about 9% of their salary into TRS. The state is supposed to pay 3%. They haven't paid their share-claiming for years that the state budget was balanced when it was not- and have "borrowed" (to put it kindly, or stolen to put it more truthfully) from the fund and now owe that money. It's their collosal mismanagement that has put the system in jeopardy. Teacher's pensions are not an extra perk on top of social security. The state devised this system to SAVE money by not paying into social security. If state employees were to go that route instead, their employers (which many of you like to point out that to them that we are), would have to pay 6% instead of 3%. I think the Feds would demand that 6%, instead of the way the state has deferred paying their 3%. So this would cost the taxpayers more money. It would actually cost the teachers less each paycheck. It's no wonder teachers need unions and collective bargaining-to protect them from being scapegoated by politicians whenever the economy goes bad. Dave, you seem more moderate, I understand resentment, but point it where it belongs-politicians who keep putting patches on top of patches to mollify the public long enough to get re-elected, or "kick the can down the road". I know many seem to think the way to solve this is to do what the legislature has done-just not pay. I have a question-what should those employees do if pensions are dumped? Jump off a cliff?

nana April 5, 2012 at 12:01 am

So, Jim R: I went to the Illinois Policy Institute's website and what you are saying is true-sort of. Teachers' ARE expected to pay 9.4% of their check to TRS. It states that right in the article. But it is true that some districts (many, apparently) pay this as a BENEFIT in the contract. Don't we private citizens get benefits from our jobs? This may be a benefit that goes away in the future, but it is still paid on the teacher's behalf. The way you quoted it made it sound like the teachers are lying when they say they have to pay this. And, if I am not mistaken, this is NOT the case in Elmhurst. Our teachers pay their own TRS here. So this is not a burden that the taxpayers of Elmhurst have. Yes, we do pay towards teacher pensions in our taxes to the state. At least, we are supposed to; who knows what happens to that money once it reaches Springfield? It apparently hasn't been going where it is supposed to go.

Jim Court April 5, 2012 at 01:22 am

These are exceedingly difficult economic times. A time of radical change. There are many who have lost much. Coming to an agreement is difficult. I am glad that all party's seem to accept the need for compromise and the commitment to the community and the the students while preserving the quality of our education.

Jim R April 5, 2012 at 11:56 am

I cannot speak specifically to Elmhurst but rely on data generally. Teachers pensions account for much of the states debt. I do not think it was just mismanagement but also pensions that are too large and unlike many they increase in time while for many others a pension is more like a fixed annuity. Salaries were increased while classroom sizes decreased which caused more burden on the tax payer. I do not sugggest pensions be removed, but they got out of control.

Jim R April 5, 2012 at 12:52 pm

"I have a question-what should those employees do if pensions are dumped? Jump off a cliff?"
Pensions should be reviewed, since many had salaries were inflated for some to increase their pensions. I would suggest the ones collecting 6 figure pensions should be reviewed and likely cut. That should at least be a starting point. The time of retirement should also be reviewed, such as those retiring in their 50's and taking a job someplace else should be penalized. Those receiving social security cannot retire until 62 and their retirement grows until 70 even though they call full retirement 66/67. So it is not pensions that I oppose it is just those that are abusive to the tax payer.

nana April 5, 2012 at 02:36 pm

Jim R-I actually agree! ;) I don't think anyone should be able to retire on 6 figures. Aren't public employees salaries a matter of public record? I think that if some research is done, we would see that there are some people who do have 6 figure pensions, but if those were removed from the mix, we would probably see that the average pension is not as high as people believe. And, as you may have surmised, I know a lot of teachers and many of them need to get jobs after they retire to make up the income they lose as a result. Also, you can only qualify for Medicare at the age of 65 (or is it 67?) if they have enough quarters of work in Social Security. Teachers now contribute to Medicare in their paychecks but that wasn't always the case and teachers who retired in the recent past have to work to get those quarters in. The rules changed a few years ago, and if you have 35.5 years in you can retire before 60. But if you had less than 20 in by the time the law changed, those teachers must work until they are 60. Teachers entering the field now also have to work longer. I know that the benefit to the taxpayers won't be felt for many years but it's a start. And asking the teachers to start contributing more toward their pension seems a little unfair, since it was the state's mismanagement that caused this issue.

Jim R April 5, 2012 at 04:44 pm

It is just a more reasonable balance which I am arguing, and the burden on taxpayers must be taken into account. A reasonable pension is something I wish all companies would provide. I admit that I receive one but it is like an annuity and is frozen in time and does not increase. It is no where near the types of pensions I have seen though I worked 29 years for the same company with a good salary.
It is the reasonableness which I argue. In the past medical was covered with very high pensions which has lead to the current situation. There is some talk about the burden of the pension be passed to the local community since that is where the salaries are determined. Now I do not think that is fair. A compromise is necessary, and all of it should not be by the tax payer like the outrageuous tax increase our governor signed. Not sure how stupid people are to vote a person who said he was going to raise taxes. Being older I must also complain about the little tax break we get on home taxes, but much of that is driven by the schools. There has been mismanagement all over the place, but some of that is a result of some increases to occur when we cannot afford it.

David April 9, 2012 at 07:14 pm

The problem is that pensions (at least the ones that the Illinois teachers get) are defined benefit plans as opposed to defined contribution plans. In a defined contribution plan, teachers would give 9%, the state could give 3%, and teachers get what ever is in the pot when they retire (this is how a 401K works).
In the teachers defined benefit plan, they get a guaranteed benefit, no matter how much money is in the pot. If you run the numbers - Teachers contributing 9%, state contributing 3%, the money earning some rate of return, teachers retiring after 30 years of service, getting 75% of their last 4 years average pay, living another 30 years, getting 3% annual COLA... Even if the state contributed their 3% (I'm not sure what they contributed or didn't), you would have to earn some monumental rate of return for the numbers to add up - the returns have been horrible - and the numbers don't add up. This is why the pensions plans are many billions in the hole and the tax payers are the ones that are supposed to make up the difference.

David April 11, 2012 at 05:23 pm

Just for the record, teachers (or in many cases the district they work for) contribute 9.4% to the TRS (Teachers Retirement system), the school contributes 0.58%, and the state (us tax payers) contributes 24.91% - NOT 3% mentioned above.
For comparision sake, I contribute 15% of my pay to my 401K and my company matches 3%. Source: http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/employers/employerservices.htm Another intestesting number, somehow the TRS made a 24% return on their investments in 2011. The Dow made 5%, the SP500 made 0% last year. Source: http://trs.illinois.gov/subsections/press/FinancialMatters_Investments.htm

Jim R April 11, 2012 at 06:03 pm

David, I sent an email to my state senator about our high tax governor commenting about looking into the abuse of pension funds and suggested that the pensions have become abusive to the tax payers. I feel teachers should receive pensions but with the help of their union our liability for covering these funds have become abusive. At this time, more of the liability needs to fall on the teachers by raising the amount a teacher must pay for their pensions. State liability and resident taxes have to be reduced.
I just received a card in the mail which I have to send back with my stamp to verify my age and residency to get my senior discount on my home. The little I save is pathetic. Now where do you think most of these taxes go? In my case I sent my child to a private school where religion could be taught, so I have paid for education twice.