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
MEA Lawsuit May Be Against Policy That They Already Endorsed; Capitol Confidential-Jul6, 2010
Topic Started: Jul 13 2010, 08:29 PM (437 Views)
Administrator
Administrator
MEA Lawsuit May Be Against Policy That They Already Endorsed
By Tom Gantert | July 6, 2010


The Michigan Education Association has done a reversal on a 3 percent pension contribution its members are required to make, as it now is fighting a clause it originally supported just months ago.

The MEA supported the pension contribution in April when the House of Representatives was voting on Senate Bill 1227.

On April 23, the MEA released a statement saying it supported Senate Bill 1227. Of the 3 percent contribution, the MEA wrote: "The bill would require all school employees to contribute an additional 3 percent of salary above what they currently pay, but the money would be placed into a special trust to fund retirement health benefits. Without this provision, health insurance for you and other future retirees will remain under attack."

However, five MEA members objected to the 3 percent contribution and filed a lawsuit. Judge James Giddings ordered a preliminary injunction requiring the state to escrow the 3 percent contributions until the court settles the matter, according to the MEA.

The MEA members say the pension change is unconstitutional and illegal with no guarantee that the benefits will be available to them upon retirement. In a press release, the MEA president attacked the bill, despite the MEA's encouragement just months earlier.

"School employees have been and are continuing to make sacrifices in these tough budget times," said MEA President Iris K. Salters in the press release.

"But taking an additional 3 percent out of their paychecks to pay for retirement benefits without any guarantee that those benefits will be there is an unconscionable act by legislators - particularly since those same legislators are still guaranteed their own lifetime health benefits after serving only six years in office. This clear attempt to balance the budget on the backs of employees is not only unfair, it's illegal."

MEA Spokesman Doug Pratt didn't immediately return an e-mail seeking explanation for the MEA's change of heart.

Michael Van Beek, the Mackinac Center for Public Policy's director of education policy, discovered the MEA's conflicting views.

"By supporting the House version of this bill, it appears that the MEA would be fine with what they are now calling a contractual violation, as long as it served the overall best interests of their members," Van Beek wrote in an e-mail.


http://www.mackinac.org/13109
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
"School employees have been and are continuing to make sacrifices in these tough budget times," said MEA President Iris K. Salters in the press release.


++++++++++

Amazing.
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Deleted User
Deleted User

Pretty typical of the MEA. Make it look good on the surface, then just toss a lawsuit at it.

Administrator
Jul 13 2010, 08:29 PM

"But taking an additional 3 percent out of their paychecks to pay for retirement benefits without any guarantee that those benefits will be there is an unconscionable act by legislators - particularly since those same legislators are still guaranteed their own lifetime health benefits after serving only six years in office. This clear attempt to balance the budget on the backs of employees is not only unfair, it's illegal."

Where will the money come from. Obviously the MEA would rather we balance it on the backs of children through cuts, and custodians through outsourcing.
Quote Post Goto Top
 
LPS Reformer
Member Avatar
The schools exist to educate, not employ.
Every higher taxes. Sigh......
“Child Abuse” means different things to different people....
----Randy Liepa 8/9/12
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Administrator
Administrator
MEA Lawsuit on Retiree Health Benefits Misguided
By Patrick J. Wright | Aug. 9, 2010

The Michigan Education Association, the state's largest public school employee union, is suing to have the Michigan Legislature's recent revision of school employee retirement benefits declared unconstitutional. The suit should have little chance, given decades of court opinion and the failure of a similar MEA lawsuit in 2005. The union's unwillingness to recognize the weakness of its case suggests it does not properly appreciate the burden its members' generous retirement benefits place on state taxpayers.

The MEA is objecting to this provision at the very time state government faces spending problems, a listless economy, high unemployment and swelling health care costs.The legislation at issue, Public Act 75 of 2010, covers a range of topics, including an early retirement incentive for public school employees and a requirement that they contribute 3 percent of their base salaries to help finance school retiree medical benefits. These health benefits can pay up to 100 percent of medical and 90 percent of dental, hearing and vision insurance premiums for school retirees and slightly less for their dependents.

This is a generous retirement benefit. Nevertheless, the MEA alleges that requiring the new contribution violates public school employees' "contractual rights" to their retiree medical benefits under the Michigan and U.S. constitutions.

It's true that both the Michigan and federal constitutions prevent the impairment of contracts. With public employees, however, the pivotal question is whether legislation related to their compensation actually represents a contract.

To deal with this question, courts in the late 19th and early 20th centuries developed a constitutional doctrine stating that absent an unmistakable intent to be contractually binding, a law passed by a legislature only sets a policy. As the U.S. Supreme Court explained: "This well-established presumption is grounded in the elementary proposition that the principal function of a legislature is not to make contracts, but to make laws that establish the policy of the state. Policies, unlike contracts, are inherently subject to revision and repeal. ..."

The delegates at Michigan's 1963 constitutional convention were aware of this distinction when they inserted a constitutional provision stating, "The accrued financial benefits of each pension plan and retirement system of the state and its political subdivisions shall be a contractual obligation thereof which shall not be diminished or impaired thereby." This passage is an unmistakable commitment to a contract, and it's a key element in the MEA's case.

But just five years ago, following an earlier MEA lawsuit alleging that an increase in retiree health co-pay was unconstitutional, the Michigan Supreme Court analyzed the state constitution's pension provision to determine whether it covered retiree health benefits. In a 5-2 vote, the court said no. The justices clarified that while cash pensions are typically considered financial benefits, health benefits are not, since they don't "accrue" like a pension. Thus, the court concluded the Legislature could legally reduce state or local government retirees' health benefits.

That ruling should hold in the current lawsuit. In the disputed law, the Legislature explicitly stated that it was not making a binding commitment to the provision of retiree health benefits, although it appears to have made a clear contractual promise to spend the 3 percent employee contributions it receives on school retiree health care. Ironically, then, the MEA is suing to remove the one provision of the law that may really place the state under a contractual retiree health care obligation (albeit limited).

This 3 percent provision asks public school employees to contribute part of the cost of their generous retiree health care benefits — benefits that most Michigan taxpayers do not have themselves. The MEA is objecting to this provision at the very time state government faces spending problems, a listless economy, high unemployment and swelling health care costs.

In fact, aside from the money allocated to this 3 percent fund, the Legislature could legally reduce retiree health benefits for public school employees to zero — and not just for future employees, but for current ones as well. If the MEA cannot recognize the burden that financing its members' expensive benefits places on state taxpayers, its members may be confronting much harder sacrifices in the years to come.

#####

Patrick J. Wright is director of the Mackinac Center Legal Foundation at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, a research and educational institute headquartered in Midland, Mich. Permission to reprint in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author and the Center are properly cited.

http://www.mackinac.org/13341
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
« Previous Topic · Livonia Neighbors Forum · Next Topic »
Add Reply