Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Welcome to Livonianeighbors.com. We hope you enjoy your visit.


You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and there are some features you can't use. If you join our community, you'll be able to access member-only sections, and use many member-only features such as customizing your profile, sending personal messages, and voting in polls. Registration is simple, fast, and completely free. To ensure your privacy, never use personal information in your screen name or email address ("janedoe@hotmail.com" or "Billysmom" for example).

Join our community!


If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features:

Username:   Password:
Add Reply
107 LPS employees laid off; June 2, 2009
Topic Started: Jun 2 2009, 08:44 PM (2,394 Views)
LPSisPoor
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I have only one question to ask all 107 of those laid off teachers residing in Livonia/Westland . . .


Who did you vote for in the school board election and why?


Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Whatever
Jun 3 2009, 09:36 AM
Anna Krome
Jun 3 2009, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry to see this. But the district has been in serious decline for 3 years--why so much in just 1 year? Could it have been more gradual?

I don't know.

Does anyone know how the district makes its student loss projections? Is it based on parents saying their students are not returning next year? How is it figured out?
"Early retirement incentives during the past three years allowed the district to call back more teachers than it probably otherwise could have, McDowell said. Approximately 100 teachers took early retirement during that period, she said."

I'm guessing they can't afford anymore buyouts to save jobs.
Early retirement incentives are a big reason the district is in such a financial mess. So many of them retire and one month later come back to work. Not just teachers, but bus drivers too. So they are collecting the early retirement incentive, a pension, getting insurance from the retirement system, come back to work for the district plus get LPS benefits again! The district likes to make us think that they hire teachers at a lower rate of pay, but the truth is they often hire teachers who have prior experience and bring them in at the top of the pay scale! Where is the savings?

Also, let's not forget the laid off teachers will present LPS with unemployment costs through the summer or until they are recalled as well as insurance benefits for, I believe, 6 months after layoff. Most of the teachers are usually recalled so there is another huge waste of money in LPS paying unemployment alone. Let's hope the recalls are completed by July 1 so that unnecessary unemployment costs can be avoided.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Bee
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I understand the emotional part of getting pink slipped. But, if they get called back in the fall what is the actual result of being pink slipped? Salary? benifits? Collect unemployment?

If 99% of the teachers that have been pink slipped over the past three years have been recalled, it seems they should be rather confident that there will be a place for them.

This year may be different considering the budget decrease and the other, I'm guessing more than 700 other teachers and administration getting raises, or maintaining their salary. Why don't the teachers that were not pink slipped help a fellow union brother or sister out and negotiate a realistic agreement that falls in line with the rest of the mid-west? The statement, "when pigs fly" comes to mind.

There is a simple solution and it rarely gets exposed or discused because of some taboo. If teacher salarys make up the majority of the budget, why can they not be reduced by some percentage. In good times, salaries are the first things that get negotiated up, why not when times get tough the opposite occur? How much does reducing the salary of the teachers by 1% save? 2%? enough to save a few teachers jobs? smaller class sizes? teaching materials so the schools don't have to solicit the parents every year? classrooms cleaned every other day rather than every third day. There are probably thousands of good teachers around Michigan that would love to teach in Livonia PS. Based on what I have heard from the board when ever there is an opening in LPS they get thousands of applications.

What was the Superintendent's salary in Livonia the last time it had less then 17,000 students, and only 26 schools? I understand the salarys of administration increasing with an expanding district. More responsibility, more compensation. They will be the first to rationalize increases. Based on their decisions there is now less responsibility and which way are the salaries going?

I think the board needs to start looking at really new ways to balance the budget. Stop cutting the programs, and activities that have been cut every time they need to balance the budget. Stop cutting the things that could make LPS a standout school district and attract or keep students. Cutting specials, after school activities, field trip transportation, sports programs (pay to play) is old. It has all been done there is nothing left to cut. I'm waiting for them to take away transportation to and from school, now that my kids can no longer walk to school. If they want to be on the board so badly start making the hard decisions.

My perception of the board and administration is that their most important objective is that the tight group at the top don't lose control of the decisions. They do everything within their power to assure the right influential people are satisfied. LPS is their cash cow and they need to defend her. Luckily for them, not enough parents of LPS students are fully educated in the decisions that are being made.

I'm sure this is not unique to LPS. Every other district has similar issues.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Purple Haze
Veteran
Bee
Jun 4 2009, 12:30 AM
I'm sure this is not unique to LPS. Every other district has similar issues.
Have any of you noticed hearing more than enough MEA advertisements on the radio lately? It's bargaining time again, methinks.

The board office parking lot was pretty full last night - any clue, someone?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Bee
Jun 4 2009, 12:30 AM


What was the Superintendent's salary in Livonia the last time it had less then 17,000 students, and only 26 schools? I understand the salarys of administration increasing with an expanding district. More responsibility, more compensation. They will be the first to rationalize increases. Based on their decisions there is now less responsibility and which way are the salaries going?
Principals' salaries fluctuate during the year based on the number of students. Salaries go down if the student count is down in their building. The same thing should happen to the superintendent and central office administrators when the student count (and employee count!) is down in the entire district. You are right, Bee. Less responsibility should equal less pay.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
uh-oh
Member Avatar
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I agree with your entire premise Bee. Still, your questions have a one word answer--unions.

In our non-union shop, every employee in the front of the house (mgt, customer service reps., estimators, etc) have taken a 10% cut. None of the shop has seen any cut. This concession, is allowing our company to stay afloat (at least for the time being). I view this as sacrifice at the top of the food chain-so to speak. It is also a kind move on behalf of the owner.

This would never happen in a unionized organization like LPS. The teachers and administration (top of the food chain & unionized) would never agree to such an agreement.

We are watching and experiencing the fallout from exactly the same situation with the auto companies. No one (from execs to line workers) wanted to concede anything over the years and now the companies are in bankruptcy court.

While this view may be unpopular, I believe the unions are killing us, whether they are the state employees, the auto workers, etc.

The time has come for employers to be kind and fair, and for employees to be reasonable about what they actually do for a living and how much it is worth--pipe dream, I know.

Edited by uh-oh, Jun 4 2009, 09:35 AM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IDK
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Jun 3 2009, 11:07 PM
Whatever
Jun 3 2009, 09:36 AM
Anna Krome
Jun 3 2009, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry to see this. But the district has been in serious decline for 3 years--why so much in just 1 year? Could it have been more gradual?

I don't know.

Does anyone know how the district makes its student loss projections? Is it based on parents saying their students are not returning next year? How is it figured out?
"Early retirement incentives during the past three years allowed the district to call back more teachers than it probably otherwise could have, McDowell said. Approximately 100 teachers took early retirement during that period, she said."

I'm guessing they can't afford anymore buyouts to save jobs.
Early retirement incentives are a big reason the district is in such a financial mess. So many of them retire and one month later come back to work. Not just teachers, but bus drivers too. So they are collecting the early retirement incentive, a pension, getting insurance from the retirement system, come back to work for the district plus get LPS benefits again! The district likes to make us think that they hire teachers at a lower rate of pay, but the truth is they often hire teachers who have prior experience and bring them in at the top of the pay scale! Where is the savings?

Also, let's not forget the laid off teachers will present LPS with unemployment costs through the summer or until they are recalled as well as insurance benefits for, I believe, 6 months after layoff. Most of the teachers are usually recalled so there is another huge waste of money in LPS paying unemployment alone. Let's hope the recalls are completed by July 1 so that unnecessary unemployment costs can be avoided.
Just an FYI,
Teachers that are retired may work as a substitute. They are paid the substitute rate, not benefits.
If you are laid off and collect unemployment over the summer and are then called back to work, you must repay the unemployment money you received over the summer.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

IDK
Jun 4 2009, 05:15 PM
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Jun 3 2009, 11:07 PM
Whatever
Jun 3 2009, 09:36 AM
Anna Krome
Jun 3 2009, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry to see this. But the district has been in serious decline for 3 years--why so much in just 1 year? Could it have been more gradual?

I don't know.

Does anyone know how the district makes its student loss projections? Is it based on parents saying their students are not returning next year? How is it figured out?
"Early retirement incentives during the past three years allowed the district to call back more teachers than it probably otherwise could have, McDowell said. Approximately 100 teachers took early retirement during that period, she said."

I'm guessing they can't afford anymore buyouts to save jobs.
Early retirement incentives are a big reason the district is in such a financial mess. So many of them retire and one month later come back to work. Not just teachers, but bus drivers too. So they are collecting the early retirement incentive, a pension, getting insurance from the retirement system, come back to work for the district plus get LPS benefits again! The district likes to make us think that they hire teachers at a lower rate of pay, but the truth is they often hire teachers who have prior experience and bring them in at the top of the pay scale! Where is the savings?

Also, let's not forget the laid off teachers will present LPS with unemployment costs through the summer or until they are recalled as well as insurance benefits for, I believe, 6 months after layoff. Most of the teachers are usually recalled so there is another huge waste of money in LPS paying unemployment alone. Let's hope the recalls are completed by July 1 so that unnecessary unemployment costs can be avoided.
Just an FYI,
Teachers that are retired may work as a substitute. They are paid the substitute rate, not benefits.
If you are laid off and collect unemployment over the summer and are then called back to work, you must repay the unemployment money you received over the summer.
You are right, IDK. That is supposed to be the "rule." However, I do know for a fact that in both instances the rules have been overlooked (especially with community ed teachers) and even overruled in the past. Bus drivers too have been allowed to retire, collect their pension, obtain retirement insurance, and then get rehired with full pay and benefits. Not only that, but some of the employees also collected an early retirement incentive. Have to think if it happened in 2 unions that it must have been happening in other unions as well. And, of course, how many administrators retired, collected the early retirement incentive pay, collect their pension, and were called back "on a consulting basis" at their regular 5 and 6 figure rate of pay? I have lost count. Can't blame the rehired employees, though. Who could blame them for taking such a sweet deal. Early retirement incentive + pension + returning to the same job at full pay! If you retire and especially if you collect an early retirement incentive to do so, shouldn't you be RETIRED? It is case after case of the right hand (administration) not knowing (or caring) what the left hand (other administrators and/or supervisors) is doing. No watchdog = no accountability.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
Momof4
Member Avatar
Veteran
So this thread began back in May/June and now I am wondering how many teachers/employees got called back to work this month.

In June I spoke to a teacher who was laid off and she wasn't worried at all about being called back saying that the lay-off threat was something LPS did all the time. So far I know of 2 teachers quietly called back in one school. How many others have received similar news and why isn't LPS letting us know this stuff.

It was a big deal, Cindy even tearing up, b/c we just couldn't afford to keep 107 teachers... what is the number now?

Maybe I'll be surprised and it will be front page news in the O/E this week about how LPS saved so many jobs. That would be a nice surprise.
Edited by Momof4, Aug 24 2009, 04:48 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
IDK
Jun 4 2009, 05:15 PM
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Jun 3 2009, 11:07 PM
Whatever
Jun 3 2009, 09:36 AM
Anna Krome
Jun 3 2009, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry to see this. But the district has been in serious decline for 3 years--why so much in just 1 year? Could it have been more gradual?

I don't know.

Does anyone know how the district makes its student loss projections? Is it based on parents saying their students are not returning next year? How is it figured out?
"Early retirement incentives during the past three years allowed the district to call back more teachers than it probably otherwise could have, McDowell said. Approximately 100 teachers took early retirement during that period, she said."

I'm guessing they can't afford anymore buyouts to save jobs.
Early retirement incentives are a big reason the district is in such a financial mess. So many of them retire and one month later come back to work. Not just teachers, but bus drivers too. So they are collecting the early retirement incentive, a pension, getting insurance from the retirement system, come back to work for the district plus get LPS benefits again! The district likes to make us think that they hire teachers at a lower rate of pay, but the truth is they often hire teachers who have prior experience and bring them in at the top of the pay scale! Where is the savings?

Also, let's not forget the laid off teachers will present LPS with unemployment costs through the summer or until they are recalled as well as insurance benefits for, I believe, 6 months after layoff. Most of the teachers are usually recalled so there is another huge waste of money in LPS paying unemployment alone. Let's hope the recalls are completed by July 1 so that unnecessary unemployment costs can be avoided.
Just an FYI,
Teachers that are retired may work as a substitute. They are paid the substitute rate, not benefits.
If you are laid off and collect unemployment over the summer and are then called back to work, you must repay the unemployment money you received over the summer.
No, you don't.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IlikeLIvonia
Member Avatar
Veteran
Micki
Aug 24 2009, 04:58 PM
IDK
Jun 4 2009, 05:15 PM
SLIPPERY SLOPE
Jun 3 2009, 11:07 PM
Whatever
Jun 3 2009, 09:36 AM
Anna Krome
Jun 3 2009, 08:20 AM
I'm sorry to see this. But the district has been in serious decline for 3 years--why so much in just 1 year? Could it have been more gradual?

I don't know.

Does anyone know how the district makes its student loss projections? Is it based on parents saying their students are not returning next year? How is it figured out?
"Early retirement incentives during the past three years allowed the district to call back more teachers than it probably otherwise could have, McDowell said. Approximately 100 teachers took early retirement during that period, she said."

I'm guessing they can't afford anymore buyouts to save jobs.
Early retirement incentives are a big reason the district is in such a financial mess. So many of them retire and one month later come back to work. Not just teachers, but bus drivers too. So they are collecting the early retirement incentive, a pension, getting insurance from the retirement system, come back to work for the district plus get LPS benefits again! The district likes to make us think that they hire teachers at a lower rate of pay, but the truth is they often hire teachers who have prior experience and bring them in at the top of the pay scale! Where is the savings?

Also, let's not forget the laid off teachers will present LPS with unemployment costs through the summer or until they are recalled as well as insurance benefits for, I believe, 6 months after layoff. Most of the teachers are usually recalled so there is another huge waste of money in LPS paying unemployment alone. Let's hope the recalls are completed by July 1 so that unnecessary unemployment costs can be avoided.
Just an FYI,
Teachers that are retired may work as a substitute. They are paid the substitute rate, not benefits.
If you are laid off and collect unemployment over the summer and are then called back to work, you must repay the unemployment money you received over the summer.
No, you don't.
Another obvious mistake by the seemingly all-knowing IDK ;)
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
IDK
Advanced Member
[ *  *  * ]
I was laid off, I did get called back, and I had to pay back my unemployment benefits.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Vanna White
Member Avatar
Veteran
IDK
Aug 24 2009, 09:26 PM
I was laid off, I did get called back, and I had to pay back my unemployment benefits.
That should only happen if you were overpaid, for example, if you were collecting unemployment AND a paycheck.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Micki
I love teaching.
IDK
Aug 24 2009, 09:26 PM
I was laid off, I did get called back, and I had to pay back my unemployment benefits.
I was laid off and did NOT have to pay it back. You might want to look into that.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Spanky
Member Avatar
Veteran
Maybe it makes a difference that Micki and IDK work in different school districts?
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Ms. AK
Veteran
Vanna's right.

Krome on Cars

Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Momof4
Member Avatar
Veteran
So my question is still out there... how many teachers/employees got called back and why are we not hearing about it thru LPS. It should be something they are proud of. I think.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Purple Haze
Veteran
Momof4
Aug 25 2009, 12:35 PM
So my question is still out there... how many teachers/employees got called back and why are we not hearing about it thru LPS. It should be something they are proud of. I think.
of the 107+ laid off at the 6/1/09 board meeting, 43 have been recalled as of the 8/17 board meeting

this figure must have changed since the board meeting, because a laid-off teacher whose name did not appear in the recall list at my child's former school has been re-hired there
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Momof4
Member Avatar
Veteran
It goes to show you that the teacher I spoke to in June was right on the money - this is a tactic that the schools do with no intention of really laying off that many people.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Tactic or not, LPS laid off a large number due to the fact that there were teachers returning from leave and Reading Recovery needing to be placed who have more seniority.

And, LPS does inform the public about the recalls - check out the boardbook - the names as well as positions/schools are listed for those who take the time to look.
Granted, it is not on a neon sign or billboard, but it is on the LPS website, under Board, under Agendas, under Board Book.

Quote Post Goto Top
 
Go to Next Page
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply