Thursday, April 06, 2006

Nitpicking Hess and West: The Benefits Issue

The American Enterprise Institute released a new report from Rick Hess and Martin West last week called “A Better Bargain: Overhauling Teacher Collective Bargaining for the 21st Century.” Mr. Hess is one of the most widely heard voices on education, and Eduwonk calls West a "rising star" in the field of education research. Together they’ve created a reasonably balanced look at the issues that are inherent in collective bargaining for teaching.

The interplay between unions and schools is a fascinating one to me. Last summer I was on the bargaining team for my union as we negotiated a new contract with my district, and it was a chore. We met about 15 times, I spent better than 100 hours working on writing language and trying to find the common ground, and things were so heated at one point I thought we were going to impasse. After a lot of give and take we were finally able to get done a week before the teachers came back to school. This year I’m a building rep and actively involved at the Uniserv level as well. It’s given me a much better understanding of the entire system.

Anyhow, I’ve been reading the report. It reads very well, as these things go. There are some areas of it that I disagree with, though, so I thought I’d do a series of posts on those. I’ll quote liberally, but you might want to download the PDF and follow along. The first problem: the benefits issue, which begins on page 25.

The first paragraph starts off well enough:

Evaluated solely in financial terms, the benefits teachers receive are modestly more generous than those received by comparable private sector workers. A 2004 Bureau of Labor Statistics Survey indicates that the fringe benefits cost per teacher amounts to 20.2 percent of total salary, as opposed to 17.0 percent in the private sector.

But then things go off track:

The average elementary school district in California spent more than $13,000 on statuatory, health, and welfare benefits per teacher in 2002-2003. When added to an average salary of slightly more than $55,500, these benefits brought the state’s total cost per elementary teacher to more than $68,000.

Notice the shift from talking about the national average to talking about the situation in California. I’ve criticized my union for using California as a stalking horse before (see here), and I’ll criticize the report for the same reason: given the cost of living and the inflation in California, it makes for a lousy comparison to anything when you’re talking money. Note too that in California the benefits actually work out to 23.4% of the salary, higher than the average that was quoted only a sentence before.

In the second paragraph they discuss retirement plans for teachers:

Nearly all public school systems still rely on “defined benefit” retirement plans that provide a formula-driven pension and disproportionately reward educators who stay in one place for 15 or 20 years at the expense of those who depart sooner. For instance, in 2000-01, 15 of the 16 states that constituted the Southern Regional Education Board required newly hired teachers to teach at least five years before vesting in the retirement system, and five states required a period of at least ten years.

There’s a couple of problems here, one extreme and the others niggling:

1) The biggest problem is that most retirement plans are run and managed by the states, not by the individual districts, and therefore lie outside the scope of any collective bargaining agreement. Here in Washington the Teacher Retirement Systems (TRS) are run by the Department of Retirement Services (for the defined benefit portion) and ICMA Retirement Corporation (for the defined contribution). Thus this is not a matter of “overhauling collective bargaining”; it’s something that is clearly a state prerogative.

2) Spinning off of the first point, it’s also something that is well within the power of the states to do. Here in Washington there are now three active TRS plans (1, 2, and 3, naturally). If you’ve been hired after 1996 you’re automatically on TRS3, which provides only 1% of the average of your “average yearly compensation” (AYC) for every year of service credit. As an example consider Mrs. Smith, who is seeking to retire at 60 after 37 years of teaching. Let’s also say that her final AYC was $60,000 a year:

37 years * 1 percent per year * $60,000 = $22,200 per year = $1850 per month

Were Mrs. Smith on TRS1 or 2 she would be able to claim 2% for every year of service credit, which would double her “defined benefit” pay to $44,400.

The folks who count the beans in Olympia decided long ago that TRS 1 and 2 would be too expensive. As a result TRS 3 was born, which cuts the defined benefit severely but requires that you put in a certain portion of your salary to a “defined contribution account,” which is managed by the state but completely your responsibility to fund and choose where the money goes.

I’ll personally testify to the fact that the WEA is a powerful union with a lot of clout. If Washington State could change their retirement system to better fit the needs of today, then why can’t other states?

My ultimate question to Mr. Hess and Mr. West would be—is this enough flexibility, to your mind? The ultimate free market exercise would be to get the state out of the retirement business entirely and demand that teachers instead make their own choices about where the money goes, which would provide the ultimate in flexibility for career-changers. It’s tough to understand just where they want to go with retirement; the motivation is there, but they’re awfully muddy on the execution.

The next paragraph (on page 26) takes on health care. Sadly, it does it very poorly:

There is also mounting evidence to suggest that teacher benefit packages are poorly equipped to deal with the rising cost of health care. The Rhode Island Education Partnership published a 2005 study that compared benefits for public school teachers to those of employees in the state’s private sector. It found that in all of the private sector firms, managers had the discretion to select a health carrier and the design of the health-care plan, while none of the school districts in the study had that capability. More than 85 percent of the private sector contracts required employees to pick up more than 15 percent of their health-care costs, compared with none of the teacher contracts. Seventy-three percent of school districts provided health benefits to retirees at no cost, while none of the private firms did so. In short, it appears that—much like troubled industrial-era firms such as General Motors, the failed steel giants, and major airlines—school districts are sinking enormous sums into gold-plated benefits plans for workers and retirees that may prove unstable.

Health care costs are one of the top things that districts worry about (there was a good Edweek article on the subject here). When we were negotiating last summer the district was very frank in saying that they needed to find a way to keep health costs in line, particularly the “carve-out” that the state charges to pay for retiree health costs.

That said, using the situation in Rhode Island to argue that there’s a national problem is deceiving. Are there no national studies that prove the point Hess and West are trying to make? Doesn’t the NCES or Education Week or somebody have the numbers to show how much is being spent?

But even beyond the total cost argument, why not give teachers a hell of a health-care package? Hess characterizes the packages as “gold-plated” (page 42, and this interview) and argues that since people look more at the base pay than at the benefits we should thus move more money into pay (particularly merit pay and extra pay for high-need areas), but to my mind a much better idea is to talk about the idea of “Total Compensation Package.” If you want to attract “mobile, skilled, college-educated professionals” (p. 41) to teaching, celebrate the fact we have good health care!

In my capacity as a building rep I’ve had dozens of conversations about benefits, and we all know we’re getting a good deal. Cherish that and publicize it, and don’t polarize an entire profession by messing with health care. Hess brushes on this point himself when he talks about the teacher strike in Vermont in 2005 where health care was the biggest issue; can you imagine that on a national scale? Will it make teaching an attractive profession if we’re all on strike and rallying? If you give the NEA a club, can you be all that shocked when they hit you over the head with it?

In my own district there was a proposal two year ago to switch dental plans. Right now there are two options; this would have taken both of those away in favor of a new plan with lower costs. The district put it to a vote of the teachers, and it failed miserably. Had that been forced upon us, the results would have been disastrous. This point is brought up in the last paragraph of the sections:

The response to efforts to rein in such packages often reveals a sense of entitlement among both union leaders and members that will make change difficult.

Part of this, too, is the fact that teaching still attracts a lot of young mothers. There have been 8 pregnancies at my medium-sized elementary school in the last two years, and I know they all appreciate the sick leave packages and medical care that they get. No one will fight harder than a mother who feels her family is threatened, and that’s how many of them would look at an attack on health care.

That was long. Next up we’ll look at what the report says about hourly pay.

1 Comments:

Anonymous Anonymous said...

豆豆聊天室 aio交友愛情館 2008真情寫真 2009真情寫真 aa片免費看 捷克論壇 微風論壇 大眾論壇 plus論壇 080視訊聊天室 情色視訊交友90739 美女交友-成人聊天室 色情小說 做愛成人圖片區 豆豆色情聊天室 080豆豆聊天室 小辣妹影音交友網 台中情人聊天室 桃園星願聊天室 高雄網友聊天室 新中台灣聊天室 中部網友聊天室 嘉義之光聊天室 基隆海岸聊天室 中壢網友聊天室 南台灣聊天室 南部聊坊聊天室 台南不夜城聊天室 南部網友聊天室 屏東網友聊天室 台南網友聊天室 屏東聊坊聊天室 雲林網友聊天室 大學生BBS聊天室 網路學院聊天室 屏東夜語聊天室 孤男寡女聊天室 一網情深聊天室 心靈饗宴聊天室 流星花園聊天室 食色男女色情聊天室 真愛宣言交友聊天室 情人皇朝聊天室 上班族成人聊天室 上班族f1影音視訊聊天室 哈雷視訊聊天室 080影音視訊聊天室 38不夜城聊天室 援交聊天室080 080哈啦聊天室 台北已婚聊天室 已婚廣場聊天室 夢幻家族聊天室 摸摸扣扣同學會聊天室 520情色聊天室 QQ成人交友聊天室 免費視訊網愛聊天室 愛情公寓免費聊天室 拉子性愛聊天室 柔情網友聊天室 哈啦影音交友網 哈啦影音視訊聊天室 櫻井莉亞三點全露寫真集 123上班族聊天室 尋夢園上班族聊天室 成人聊天室上班族 080上班族聊天室 6k聊天室 粉紅豆豆聊天室 080豆豆聊天網 新豆豆聊天室 080聊天室 免費音樂試聽 流行音樂試聽 免費aa片試看A片 免費a長片線上看 色情貼影片 免費a長片 本土成人貼圖站 大台灣情色網 台灣男人幫論壇 A圖網 嘟嘟成人電影網 火辣春夢貼圖網 情色貼圖俱樂部 台灣成人電影 絲襪美腿樂園 18美女貼圖區 柔情聊天網 707網愛聊天室聯盟 台北69色情貼圖區 38女孩情色網 台灣映像館 波波成人情色網站 美女成人貼圖區 無碼貼圖力量 色妹妹性愛貼圖區 日本女優貼圖網 日本美少女貼圖區 亞洲風暴情色貼圖網 哈啦聊天室 美少女自拍貼圖 辣妹成人情色網 台北女孩情色網 辣手貼圖情色網 AV無碼女優影片 男女情色寫真貼圖 a片天使俱樂部 萍水相逢遊戲區 平水相逢遊戲區 免費視訊交友90739 免費視訊聊天 辣妹視訊 - 影音聊天網 080視訊聊天室 日本美女肛交 美女工廠貼圖區 百分百貼圖區 亞洲成人電影情色網 台灣本土自拍貼圖網 麻辣貼圖情色網 好色客成人圖片貼圖區 711成人AV貼圖區 台灣美女貼圖區 筱萱成人論壇 咪咪情色貼圖區 momokoko同學會視訊 kk272視訊 情色文學小站 成人情色貼圖區 嘟嘟成人網 嘟嘟情人色網 - 貼圖區 免費色情a片下載 台灣情色論壇 成人影片分享 免費視訊聊天區 微風 成人 論壇 kiss文學區 taiwankiss文學區

4:52 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home