Details from Jonathan Bean, who argues that pending legislation could mean a massive pay cut in order to fund our pensions.
I'll quickly make one response to him here, though. He asks where the FA is in response to this. At graduation and grading exams. We don't have a full-time staffer on the pension front. That's because we don't have a full time (or part time) staffer. So, yes, our concerns tend to be local--though, hey, I'm trying, aren't I?
If the IEA is selling us down the river, though, that would be another story. In their potential defense, this may be the perennial debate between choosing to help improve a bad deal to make it slightly less bad and resolutely opposing a bad deal which doesn't get any better, and may well get passed despite one's opposition.
Friday, May 13, 2011
1 comment:
I will review and post comments as quickly as I can. Comments that are substantive and not vicious will be posted promptly, including critical ones. "Substantive" here means that your comment needs to be more than a simple expression of approval or disapproval. "Vicious" refers to personal attacks, vile rhetoric, and anything else I end up deeming too nasty to post.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Dave,
ReplyDeleteAs Myron Lieberman notes in his book _Teacher Unions_, the problem isn't the locals; the problem is how the state and national bodies have interests often at odds with the locals. This is a perennial issue in labor history.
What I do find objectionable is the double standard: the IEA is demanding a boycott of Koch businesses for their support of Governor Walker in Wisconsin - the latter sought 5.8% contributions from state employees versus Madigan, et al. seeking 14.5% On the one hand we have explosive outrage and paranoid conspiracy theories, on the other whatever happens in Springfield is among friends so the IEA turns down the heat. And people wonder why I'm a libertarian (small "l").