The We Are One Illinois pension coalition has unveiled a proposal for resolving the pension crisis. The Coalition’s framework states that:
The following must be in any plan going forward:
1. A guarantee that the state will pay its portion as required. That hasn’t happened for decades, as legislatures have diverted money to other programs.
2. A true look at revenue by closing loopholes for big corporations that hurt taxpayers of Illinois. Many loopholes exist, and closing a few would generate money to help pay down the pension debt.
3. No inclusion of current retirees, who are living on an earned and needed pension and cannot re-enter the job market.
4. With a guarantee that the state would pay its portion, the members would be willing to help the state by paying more, even though they have contributed their portion over the years. (This increase may differ for the various pension plans.)
We will post new information as it becomes available. Check the IEA website, Facebook page and Twitter feed for updates.
Illinois Education Association is an association of more than 130,000 members composed of Illinois elementary and secondary teachers, higher education faculty and staff, educational support professionals, retired educators and college students preparing to become teachers.
Before any serious discussion could even begin:
1. The IEA and other pension systems need to have independent, outside auditors verify the $83 billion figure floated by politicians. Who came up with that figure?Who made that calculation? I think this is a red herring, designed to scare us into submission.
2. Pensions for legislators past, current and future have to be eliminated. They are part-time employees of us, people. Part time employees do not participate in pension systems. Legislators who want to earn pensions need to have other full time jobs that would entitle them to pension enefits. For the rest there’s SS. Ditto with health benefits while they serve in Springfield and and in retirement. That’s what Medicare is for.
3. I do not buy any solemn promises that the pension systems will be now fully funded, if only we agree to pay for our pensions one more time. The answer is NO.
4. Let’s investigate to what programs the state money slated for pension systems got diverted. Then terminate these programs, sell assets and refund pension systems.
While I would not be happy paying more, I understand the compromise. I am concerned about a guarantee from our legislators. How will this be enforced? I remember writing my legislators in the late 80s about the underfunding of my pension. I’ve based my retirement plans on my pension. 20+ years into my career and AGAIN we are giving more. I’ll be seeing a decrease in my take home pay if we agree to these things. With funding cuts to my district, I have nothing for supplies and less and less for professional development. These costs come out of my salary. We will have larger class sizes because we can’t hire more teachers. Do more in the classroom with less. Will that help the state’s economy? Let’s not pretend that this idea is not “on the backs of teachers”.
This is bogus and absolutely untrue to have elected officials of the IEA and NEA declare that the membership will contribute more! Who asked me for my opinion and my vote on conceeding to the crooks in Springfield? Since when do people who are elected to represent the unions get to decide anything unilaterally?
The contribution for current teachers is a tough choice that makes me uncomfortable.. My opinion is based on the fact that current teachers pay starts at a much higher point than current retirees who began thier carreers when teachers starting salaries were very low. Teachers who retired in the last 15-20 years starting pay was around $10,000 a year and they fought to bring pay up for future teachers and themselves by striking to bring attention to the unfairness of teacher pay in those days.Any increase in the retirement contribution must be slowly implimented and there must be a limit agreed on by current teachers that they feel is fair. This should be voted on and passed before implimented.
Many of those teachers who are already retired are making over $100,000 a year, especially in suburban districts. An increase (or not) should be based on income, not on time of retirement. Also, when the legislators (who get 85% of ther salary after 8 years) become part of the state or municipal system, then let’s talk about chanages to teachers and state employees. And when everyone pays for their health insurance once they’re retired, including judges and administrators, then let’s talk about changes in insurance. Come on, IEA, stand up for us and make some offers that include getting these policy makers to give up their excessive packages for part time, brief “public service”, while still keeping their day jobs!
What Bruce says in not all fact. I started working 23 years ago and my starting wage was 18000. The starting wage now is around 32000 for down state workers. That has not kept up with inflation. I do agree any increases should be slowly impemented. More importantly, It should take into account how many years you have left and be prorated. I have worked 23 of my 35 years. That should be taken into consideration. Like wise a person who only has 5 years left should pay less than me.
These are great points and I back them as I hope all others will.To ask all current retired teachers to change anything is not right and unfair. The increase to current teachers must also be fair and slowly implimented with a limit on the increase of thier contribution.