I didn't say it was a good idea.  It is a very debatable issue.  I just said it would be popular.  Why do you think it, as just one relatively minor needle in the haystack which is this bill, is being emphasized over and over again by the pro-SB5 group ads?  Why do you think it is an issue the anti-SB5 ads stay relatively silent on?

 

 

I know you didn't say it was a good idea, I was just offering my opinion on the issue.

 

I understand what both sides are trying to do.  They're each cherrypicking the parts for which they have the most support and building ads based around those issues.  Not entirely honest, but then again, it's really hard to generalize a bill that truly is a comprehensive load of crap with a few nuggets sprinkled in.

So if the pro-SB 5 side can't find someone to support them, just re-edit an anti-SB 5 person's words to make it look like they support them?

 

Recut television ad turns SB 5 opponent into backer

By Jim Siegel, The Columbus Dispatch

Wednesday, October 12, 2011 - 1:06 PM

 

Last week, Marlene Quinn was starring in a television ad explaining how Cincinnati firefighters saved her great-granddaughter, and urging Ohioans to vote against Issue 2 so firefighters could continue to negotiate for proper staffing levels.

 

Yesterday, the 78-year-old Quinn was startled to learn that she also was starring in a new ad by the Republican group Building a Better Ohio, her image and words swiped from the Issue 2 opposition ad and spliced to sound like she is a supporter of the anti-collective-bargaining law.

 

MORE: http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/12/recut-television-ad-turns-sb-5-opponent-into-backer.html

I guarantee We Are Ohio is hard at work right now making an ad about the BBO ad stealing footage from their first ad.  This is going to get confusing.  I suppose right about now is the time when the issues are lost and the discussion turns to who is running a dirtier campaign.

 

"BBO".... that makes me smile every time

 

http://theseinfelddictionary.com/2008/01/20/beyond-bo-bbo/

A few quick facts of note:

 

- there were 0 public employee strikes in Ohio in 2010 under the current system.

 

- NYC was the first city to establish meaningful collective bargaining with its safety forces.  Prior to that time, the average career of an NYC police officer was 5 years.  Part of that was due to cronyism and patronage and part of that was due to the lack of seniority protection, causing cops to look for other careers because they knew longevity was unlikely.  It can be very hard to maintian a job when your boss changes every four years with the whims of the voting public and he has some favors to pay back once getting into office.

A few quick facts of note:

 

- there were 0 public employee strikes in Ohio in 2010 under the current system.

 

- NYC was the first city to establish meaningful collective bargaining with its safety forces.  Prior to that time, the average career of an NYC police officer was 5 years.  Part of that was due to cronyism and patronage and part of that was due to the lack of seniority protection, causing cops to look for other careers because they knew longevity was unlikely.  It can be very hard to maintian a job when your boss changes every four years with the whims of the voting public and he has some favors to pay back once getting into office.

 

This is my concern with completely eliminating tenure for teachers.  I think the new SB5 provisions could bring about a situation where a successful veteran teacher is replaced by the fresh-out-of-college nephew of a school board member. 

This is my concern with completely eliminating tenure for teachers.  I think the new SB5 provisions could bring about a situation where a successful veteran teacher is replaced by the fresh-out-of-college nephew of a school board member. 

I'm of the opinion that the "fresh-out-of-college nephew of a school board member" is going to get a job either way. There's not really a way to completely prevent that. With that being my assumption, and all else being equal, I'd rather we lose a teacher that did a good job their first couple years, did a mediocre job the next few, and has been doing a lousy job for the last few years than some new teacher that has been doing a good job the last couple years.

 

I think seniority should still be A factor in HR decisions, but I think performance should take precedence.

I think there is some confusion as to what 'tenure' actually is.  If a teacher is truly lousy and you can prove it, you can fire that teacher regardless of tenure.  Tenure does not prevent 'just cause' terminations.  All it does is protect the more senoir teachers when layoffs occur for reasons OTHER THAN PERFORMANCE.

I think seniority should still be A factor in HR decisions, but I think performance should take precedence.

 

And how should performance be measured in your opinion?

^ Just because something is difficult to quantify, doesn't make it impossible to achieve.

 

I would say it would have to be some standards based on of average grade of students over the course of the year, feedback from students / parents / supervisors, maybe throw in performance on mid term / year end grades, and on standardized testing (because it's a benchmark used in obtaining federal funding, like it or not). Throw in less quantifiable items, like continuing education, what kind of projects they came up with, review of their syllabus to ensure it's not the same stale thing they've used for 10 years....

 

You can give them the same review thresholds that I get in a corporate job (i.e. 'meets expectations', exceeds expectations, does not meet expectations, unacceptable). You get in the lower tier, you're on probation and have to come up with a plan to execute in the next year to get back on track. Don't meet the goals for the next year, you are removed from the position. If you're in the upper tier, you're eligible for merit pay increases based on whatever pay bumps you've agreed to in your contract (cost of living increases would be determined separately)

 

There's a lot of things you can use to measure performance. It doesn't have to be a black and white matrix type thing based on just a few statistical measurements.

 

But I don't accept that measuring performance is some unobtainable objective either.

It would be nice to have some vetting of the process before it is implemented.  Anything is possible, but there are sometimes a thousand ways to do something wrong and only a few methods for doing it right.

Desperation is a stinky cologne...

 

Issue 2 supporters now targeting President Obama

 

COLUMBUS, Ohio - About the only politician polling as poorly as Gov. John Kasich in Ohio right now is President Barack Obama.

 

So, maybe that is why supporters of Issue 2, the referendum on the state's new collective bargaining law, have sent out mailers bashing the Democratic president in an effort to dial up support for the law that is unmistakeably connected to the Republican governor.

 

The color mailer contains a photo of a troubled looking Obama with his right index finger holding his head and the words: "Obama's policies are failing our country."

 

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2011/10/issue_2_supporters_now_targeti.html

LOL, that's some grasping at straws there. What's next? Might as well throw 9/11 in there as well.

 

Oh....wait.....

I think they are using this republican chart....

 

^ Just because something is difficult to quantify, doesn't make it impossible to achieve.

 

I would say it would have to be some standards based on of average grade of students over the course of the year, feedback from students / parents / supervisors, maybe throw in performance on mid term / year end grades, and on standardized testing (because it's a benchmark used in obtaining federal funding, like it or not). Throw in less quantifiable items, like continuing education, what kind of projects they came up with, review of their syllabus to ensure it's not the same stale thing they've used for 10 years....

 

You can give them the same review thresholds that I get in a corporate job (i.e. 'meets expectations', exceeds expectations, does not meet expectations, unacceptable). You get in the lower tier, you're on probation and have to come up with a plan to execute in the next year to get back on track. Don't meet the goals for the next year, you are removed from the position. If you're in the upper tier, you're eligible for merit pay increases based on whatever pay bumps you've agreed to in your contract (cost of living increases would be determined separately)

 

There's a lot of things you can use to measure performance. It doesn't have to be a black and white matrix type thing based on just a few statistical measurements.

 

But I don't accept that measuring performance is some unobtainable objective either.

 

A lot of these things are already being done and are up for debate on effectiveness.  But when people start throwing around the term "merit pay," it's usually code for using standardized test scores to determine pay/bonuses.  This is what concerns me. 

 

If we're going to go down that road, then we better have an absolute fool-proof system that is at least 95% accurate in measuring what it's supposed to measure.  There are great teachers working in urban districts whose students, for various reasons, score terribly on standardized tests.  There are average teachers in exurban districts whose students score through the roof.  Any system that is going to take into consideration standardized test scores to determine part of a teachers pay better be able to eliminate all extraneous variables and truly be able to show what value the teacher added.

 

Also, I just had to respond to your syllabus comment.  If a teacher has found a method that works well and helps the students connect with the material, then who cares if they use it for ten years or more? 

^ same basic framework, probably fine. But I don't care who you are, if you're teaching the same material the exact same way year in, year out, you're going to start losing your edge, and the students are going to notice.

 

I never said anything about strictly basing merit increases based on standardized tests. I threw out a number of potential criteria that one might use. There are probably many more that those in the education industry might consider important. And I'm going to presume the review will be conducted by a human with an understanding of the environment in which the teacher is working, and not just by plopping some numbers into a computer model.

 

My point was strictly that it's possible to do it. Saying that the problem is too hard doesn't work in the classroom, so it shouldn't work here either.

 

Going back to SB5, this is all something that could have been negotiated, using threat of the legislation as a 'stick' to bring the parties to the table. I'm certain that this is going to be reversed in November, and the political pendulum is going to swing away from Kasich and his merry men, and the state lost an opportunity to negotiate some good faith reforms.

There is always the possibility of "good faith reforms".  There are a lot of things with the current system that the unions want changed too.  But when political vindictiveness enters the equation (as it did with SB5) then any appearance of good faith is lost.

^True.

 

Maybe JK could use this book

 

I never said anything about strictly basing merit increases based on standardized tests. I threw out a number of potential criteria that one might use. There are probably many more that those in the education industry might consider important. And I'm going to presume the review will be conducted by a human with an understanding of the environment in which the teacher is working, and not just by plopping some numbers into a computer model.

 

Oh, I know that you didn't say such a thing.  I was just pointing out that when merit pay is discussed it usually has to do with introducing the use of standardized test scores to determine compensation.  For instance, "merit pay" is a part of SB5, and the language in the bill stipulates that standardized test scores will be used for 50% of how certain teachers (language/math, specifically) are "evaluated."

While teachers are not members of para-military organizations like the safety forces, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there.  Emergency responders are paid based on a blend of merit and seniority.

 

Your pay is largely based on your rank, which the Ohio constittuion requires be determined through fitness and merit.  But within each rank, there are step increases which determine different levels of pay within that rank and are determined by longevity.  There are also separate longevity payments negotiated into the contracts which are paid yearly regardless of rank.

 

The more senior members are protected from layoffs and RIFs against their younger counterparts, but only within the same rank.  Therefore, an Lt. with less senoirity does not automatically lose his job in favor of the more senior Fgf. who never demonstrated the merit and fitness to be promoted.

 

Just putting some ideas out there....

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

 

They nailed it that both options suck, and compromise is badly needed.  Unfortunately, that should have happened before it was passed.

 

I opposed SB5, and am undecided on Issue 2.  Considering my political leanings, this means it's almost certain to fail. 

 

If I do vote yes, it will be in large part to make the vote closer and compromise more likely. 

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

 

They nailed it that both options suck, and compromise is badly needed.  Unfortunately, that should have happened before it was passed.

 

I opposed SB5, and am undecided on Issue 2.  Considering my political leanings, this means it's almost certain to fail. 

 

If I do vote yes, it will be in large part to make the vote closer and compromise more likely. 

Sadly I don't think a close vote on this will make compromise any more likely.

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

 

They nailed it that both options suck, and compromise is badly needed.  Unfortunately, that should have happened before it was passed.

 

I opposed SB5, and am undecided on Issue 2.  Considering my political leanings, this means it's almost certain to fail. 

 

If I do vote yes, it will be in large part to make the vote closer and compromise more likely. 

Sadly I don't think a close vote on this will make compromise any more likely.

 

Based on the fight over SB5, you are probably right.  Though the GOP can make it happen pretty much unilaterally if Issue 2 fails, and a close vote might help them have the backbone to do so.

I think there will be a compromise after Issue 2 fails.  The Republicans aren't going to so easily give up on instituting reform, but after a humbling defeat and with a Presidential election cycle next year, they will be less likely to push anywhere near the extreme/politically-motivated changes they tried in SB5.  In the end, Ohio will be better off with more balanced reforms.

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

 

I would have been surprised if the PD's endorsement was for a "no" vote.  The board endorsed Kasich, after all.

 

I just got back from a fairly fiery City Club debate on this.  Interesting forum, although I think that everybody in that room already had their minds made up.

Plain Dealer editorial this weekend endorsing "Yes" on Issue 2.  Pretty surprised to see this.

 

http://www.cleveland.com/opinion/index.ssf/2011/10/the_law_will_need_adjustments.html

 

I would have been surprised if the PD's endorsement was for a "no" vote.  The board endorsed Kasich, after all.

 

I just got back from a fairly fiery City Club debate on this.  Interesting forum, although I think that everybody in that room already had their minds made up.

 

Is there video or audio available from the debate? 

 

Unfortunately when it comes to the PD, the newspaper ownership seems to have its thumb on the editorial board.  This is quite a shame, because I'm not sure the press is supposed to be like that.

 

Anyways, the logic behind the PD's endorsement is faulty.  If Issue 2 were to pass, the Republicans would have absolutely no incentive to go back and make adjustments or compromise with anyone.  Compromise is most likely to happen if the issue fails. 

There were cameras so I assume the video will be available.  I thought I heard something about Ideastream and a podcast.

 

If Issue 2 were to pass, the Republicans would have absolutely no incentive to go back and make adjustments or compromise with anyone.  Compromise is most likely to happen if the issue fails. 

 

If it passes it will be close, and vulnerable GOP legislators will likely be willing to listen.  Compromise is still possible.

The presumption of the municipal budget debate is that public workers' salaries have to be reduced in the manner that most Ohio workers' pay has been reduced due to globalization and off shoring.  Is that what Ohio's politicians are trying to do?

 

By what measure did they determine that teachers with an average pay in the "mid $50,000 range" are overpaid?  One needs a college degree to get that job.  It is one of the most important jobs in our society.  I think teachers should be paid way more than that.  Entry salaries are below $40,000--that is enough to lure good prospective teachers to another profession.

The presumption of the municipal budget debate is that public workers' salaries have to be reduced in the manner that most Ohio workers' pay has been reduced due to globalization and off shoring.  Is that what Ohio's politicians are trying to do?

 

By what measure did they determine that teachers with an average pay in the "mid $50,000 range" are overpaid?  One needs a college degree to get that job.  It is one of the most important jobs in our society.  I think teachers should be paid way more than that.  Entry salaries are below $40,000--that is enough to lure good prospective teachers to another profession.

 

Excellent point.  If you're good in math and science (and you actually now need a degree in these subjects to teach them at the secondary level), why in the heck would you become a teacher when you can make oftentimes at least twice as much out of the gate using your degree in other ways?  Not to mention the lack of respect and the abuse that the profession now takes from certain people.

 

It's funny how all of sudden teachers, firefighters, and police officers are overpaid.  The thing about these professions is that they offer stable compensation.  Ten years ago when the economy was booming people laughed at how "little" these people made knowing the private sector offered so much more.

 

Some of the rhetoric in this whole discussion and debate disgusts me at times.

While teachers are not members of para-military organizations like the safety forces, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there.  Emergency responders are paid based on a blend of merit and seniority.

 

Your pay is largely based on your rank, which the Ohio constittuion requires be determined through fitness and merit.  But within each rank, there are step increases which determine different levels of pay within that rank and are determined by longevity.  There are also separate longevity payments negotiated into the contracts which are paid yearly regardless of rank.

 

The more senior members are protected from layoffs and RIFs against their younger counterparts, but only within the same rank.  Therefore, an Lt. with less senoirity does not automatically lose his job in favor of the more senior Fgf. who never demonstrated the merit and fitness to be promoted.

 

Just putting some ideas out there....

 

This could have some possibilities.

 

I favor merit pay and reduced tenure protections because there are definitely people that I know of seriously abusing that system.  My sister student-taught for a teacher in Columbus Public Schools who did almost nothing in class to enforce basic discipline, and did even less to actually teach.  That waste of space needs to be kicked out and replaced with a younger, cheaper teacher--people keep talking about that like it's a bad thing, but it's not necessarily.  Not when there are a fair number of older teachers coasting and making $80k+, while there are talented graduates out there trying to get their feet in the door and willing to work for $40k or less.

 

My sister was one of the lucky ones who at least found a job.  She gets fantastic reviews, from everything I hear (and I believe what I hear on this one, because she has the force of personality necessary to manage a room full of middle schoolers--a somewhat rare personality trait).  For all that, she is going to be the first one let go in the event of budget cuts, because of the seniority system.  Moreover, the inability to tear up collective bargaining contracts increases the likelihood that her job will get axed in order to fund rising benefit costs for the more senior teachers who remain.

Is there video or audio available from the debate? 

 

 

It's on PBS right now.

While teachers are not members of para-military organizations like the safety forces, perhaps there is a lesson to be learned there.  Emergency responders are paid based on a blend of merit and seniority.

 

Your pay is largely based on your rank, which the Ohio constittuion requires be determined through fitness and merit.  But within each rank, there are step increases which determine different levels of pay within that rank and are determined by longevity.  There are also separate longevity payments negotiated into the contracts which are paid yearly regardless of rank.

 

The more senior members are protected from layoffs and RIFs against their younger counterparts, but only within the same rank.  Therefore, an Lt. with less senoirity does not automatically lose his job in favor of the more senior Fgf. who never demonstrated the merit and fitness to be promoted.

 

Just putting some ideas out there....

 

This could have some possibilities.

 

I favor merit pay and reduced tenure protections because there are definitely people that I know of seriously abusing that system.  My sister student-taught for a teacher in Columbus Public Schools who did almost nothing in class to enforce basic discipline, and did even less to actually teach.  That waste of space needs to be kicked out and replaced with a younger, cheaper teacher--people keep talking about that like it's a bad thing, but it's not necessarily.  Not when there are a fair number of older teachers coasting and making $80k+, while there are talented graduates out there trying to get their feet in the door and willing to work for $40k or less.

 

My sister was one of the lucky ones who at least found a job.  She gets fantastic reviews, from everything I hear (and I believe what I hear on this one, because she has the force of personality necessary to manage a room full of middle schoolers--a somewhat rare personality trait).  For all that, she is going to be the first one let go in the event of budget cuts, because of the seniority system.  Moreover, the inability to tear up collective bargaining contracts increases the likelihood that her job will get axed in order to fund rising benefit costs for the more senior teachers who remain.

 

In regards to the bad teachers issue (which from what I've seen is vastly overstated), this is an administration problem.  If this cases exists, which I'm sure they do, then it's the administrators that should be doing more about it.  Maybe it should be a bit easier to get rid of bad teacher, but not to the point where it tilts the balance of power so far in the other direction that the highly-paid, good teachers out there can be disposed of at a whim to save money (and this will happen).  Or that the fiery, outspoken teacher who also happens to be very good at his job can be dumped because his views at odds with one of his superiors.

 

Again, the merit pay thing would be problematic on a number of levels even if it did work.  Unfortunately, there are a number of studies out there that show it does not improve outcomes and actually makes the environment for colleagues more contentious (why in the hell would a good senior teacher mentor a younger teacher who might be in line to take their job; forget about sharing best practices amongst colleagues).

It's funny how all of sudden teachers, firefighters, and police officers are overpaid.  The thing about these professions is that they offer stable compensation. 

 

Stable compensation, pension retirements with COLA, not 401k's, excellent healthcare benefits, overly generous sick days, personal days, vacation days...  when state, county & city budgets are running major defecits, everything will be scrutinized.  What's so funny about that?

You mean the benefits they NEGOTIATED for in lieu of pay increases over the years?  Cops and Firefighters, btw, don't have COLA accounts.  They contribute to OP&F.  Under the new law, nothing changes for them in that respect.

Eliminate the $500 million/year "charter school program" if Ohioans need to cut the "education budget".  Charter schools require duplicate management and facilities that are already available at the public schools.

 

...  when state, county & city budgets are running major defecits, everything will be scrutinized.  What's so funny about that?

It's funny how all of sudden teachers, firefighters, and police officers are overpaid.  The thing about these professions is that they offer stable compensation. 

 

Stable compensation, pension retirements with COLA, not 401k's, excellent healthcare benefits, overly generous sick days, personal days, vacation days...  when state, county & city budgets are running major defecits, everything will be scrutinized.  What's so funny about that?

 

What's really funny is that you only took part of my quote to comment on.  Go back and read what came after what you quoted.  It's kind of important to the point I was making. 

Eliminate the $500 million/year "charter school program" if Ohioans need to cut the "education budget".  Charter schools require duplicate management and facilities that are already available at the public schools.

 

...  when state, county & city budgets are running major defecits, everything will be scrutinized.  What's so funny about that?

 

And on the whole, charters really do no better than public schools.  But the facts won't get in the way of a big political giveback by Kasich to his White Hat Management buddies.

You mean the benefits they NEGOTIATED for in lieu of pay increases over the years?  Cops and Firefighters, btw, don't have COLA accounts.  They contribute to OP&F.  Under the new law, nothing changes for them in that respect.

 

The thing is, private sector unions are forced by the marketplace to keep their companies competitive.  Public sector unions face no such constraints.  Plus, in many constituences they form a significant voting bloc, especially combined with allied unions.

 

That's how things like COLA pensions (extremely rare in the private sector), highly generous vacation/leave policies, and perhaps most importantly, work rules that maximize head count (at the expense of efficiency)*  happen.

 

 

* Not long ago, the question "How many Philadelphia City Schools employees does it take to change a light bulb?" was asked.  The answer, literally, was three.  A rigger to set up the ladder, an electrician to change the bulb, and a general laborer to clean up afterwards.

We can argue about staffing all day.  But we won't get anywhere.  If you want to claim that cops riding two in a car in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country and 4 firefighters per apparatus as recommended by the NFPA comes at the expense of efficiency, go right ahead.

 

Regarding your "no constraints" comment, then what in the world motivated the public unions to enter into concessions totaling over $1 billion (that's a "b") before SB5 was even a twinkle in Kasich's eye.

The public-sector benefits vs. private-sector benefits is just a distraction so private sector workers will forget how badly they're being screwed. If it really were about the competitiveness of corporations, then the big-money earners at the top -- those who've already plundered workers' pension accounts through mergers and acquisitions -- would take big pay cuts, too. But no ... they want to squeeze more blood from the turnips in their employ.

We can argue about staffing all day.  But we won't get anywhere.  If you want to claim that cops riding two in a car in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country and 4 firefighters per apparatus as recommended by the NFPA comes at the expense of efficiency, go right ahead.

 

Regarding your "no constraints" comment, then what in the world motivated the public unions to enter into concessions totaling over $1 billion (that's a "b") before SB5 was even a twinkle in Kasich's eye.

 

When we're talking about safety, that's a different matter. I opposed SB5, in part for this reason.

 

Stuff like "I'm not doing that, that's a different job classification" is pretty much extinct from the private sector, but in the public sector there's nothing to stop it.

 

I said "no such constraints"....they face budgetary concerns but they don't deal with competition on the same level the private sector does.

 

Stuff like "I'm not doing that, that's a different job classification" is pretty much extinct from the private sector, but in the public sector there's nothing to stop it.

 

 

... except many of the public-sector workers themselves, who routinely do what needs to be done. The only time they don't is when managers are coming down on them and they organize "work to the rule" efforts. Those efforts are intended to remind their bosses that they are ordinarily willing to skirt union rules when doing so is in their interest and the public's.

 

OK. Your next question is, "Why are the union rules sometimes not in the public interest?" It's a good question. Part of the answer is that sometimes unions do dumb things. The other part is that, without some of those rules and contract provisions, the managers would just keep piling more on the workers.

The public-sector benefits vs. private-sector benefits is just a distraction so private sector workers will forget how badly they're being screwed. If it really were about the competitiveness of corporations, then the big-money earners at the top -- those who've already plundered workers' pension accounts through mergers and acquisitions -- would take big pay cuts, too. But no ... they want to squeeze more blood from the turnips in their employ.

 

(1) I seriously don't think that private sector workers forget the comparatively smaller size of their own market-set compensation by seeing the outsized benefits packages of public sector workers.  In fact, I think, if anything, it makes them more apt to remember than forget.  Whether the private sector packages count as "getting screwed" is a matter of opinion.

 

(2) While government intervention in the economy via bailouts certainly saved the fat paychecks of some of those at the top, particularly in the financial sector, that is hardly true across the economy.  That doesn't mean that there is some moral or political obligation to balance one economically destructive and unjustified policy move (bailouts for the financial sector) with a separate one benefiting a different special interest group.

 

(3) How exactly do mergers and acquisitions result in the plundering of pension accounts?  Contractual obligations cannot be abrogated in a merger, and property rights in retirement accounts aren't even the employer's to begin with, as a general rule: the assets in IRAs and 401(k) accounts are considered vested in the employees.

(3) How exactly do mergers and acquisitions result in the plundering of pension accounts?  ...

 

Answer: How Employers Raid Pension Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html?mod=WSJ_RetirementPlanning_MoreHeadlines

 

Here's a translation of some of employers' most common claims:

 

"Spiraling costs force us to freeze your pensions."

That's partly true -- but not the whole story. A little over a decade ago, pension plans had $250 billion in surplus assets. But employers siphoned billions from the pension plans to pay for restructuring costs, often by providing additional payouts in lieu of severance, and by withdrawing money to pay retiree health benefits -- and in some cases parachutes for executives.

 

When the market cratered in 2008, there was no surplus to cushion the blow, and today, pensions collectively are underfunded by 20%.

 

With one big exception: Pensions for top executives continue to spiral, and account for much of the growing pension cost companies complain about.

...continued...

Ellen E. Schultz made a great speech and Q-A session on Cspan last month. 

She also appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart last week.

 

Adapted from "RETIREMENT HEIST: How Companies Plunder and Profit from the Nest Eggs of American Workers" by Ellen E. Schultz. Copyright 2011 by Ellen E. Schultz.

We can argue about staffing all day.  But we won't get anywhere.  If you want to claim that cops riding two in a car in some of the most dangerous neighborhoods in the country and 4 firefighters per apparatus as recommended by the NFPA comes at the expense of efficiency, go right ahead.

 

When it comes to public safety, you're right, staffing should not be a question.  But when it comes to education, it seems that there's no reason why class sizes in districts around the state couldn't easily go to 50 students for one teacher.  I mean Kasich's education czar said it, so it must make some sense.  Right?

So the Cleveland PD has come out with a questionable endorsement of Issue 2.  Have the other major newspapers in Ohio weighed in?

(3) How exactly do mergers and acquisitions result in the plundering of pension accounts?  ...

 

Answer: How Employers Raid Pension Plans

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204138204576605482876191482.html?mod=WSJ_RetirementPlanning_MoreHeadlines

 

 

There's some shady stuff in there, to be sure (some shadier than others ... ceasing prospective 401(k) employer matching is different than deliberately underfunding established pension plans).  However, my question was specifically what mergers and acquisitions had to do with this issue.  Nothing in that article said anything about it.

 

Bankruptcy is a different story, of course, but bankruptcy is almost at the far side of the legal universe from mergers and acquisitions.

Interesting:

 

http://www.dispatch.com/content/stories/local/2011/10/17/public-private-compensation-in-same-ballpark.html

Find Shultz' address at www.cspan.org

Buy her book.