Talking Points
Talking Points/TenureSource: NYSUT Media Relations
The Issue: The recent attacks on tenure — such as the legal case now before a California appeals court, the lawsuit filed by a group of students on Staten Island and another threatened in New York by a right-wing front group headed by former television celebrity Campbell Brown — are utterly without merit and simply nothing more than an all-out attack on the fundamental labor rights of working people by the wealthy elite and anti-union forces. NYSUT will mount an aggressive and vigorous challenge to any attempt to strip New York's dedicated teachers of this essential and fundamental right — which is a vital safeguard ensuring quality education, academic freedom and classroom stability.
Where We Stand
The Issue: The recent attacks on tenure — such as the legal case now before a California appeals court, the lawsuit filed by a group of students on Staten Island and another threatened in New York by a right-wing front group headed by former television celebrity Campbell Brown — are utterly without merit and simply nothing more than an all-out attack on the fundamental labor rights of working people by the wealthy elite and anti-union forces. NYSUT will mount an aggressive and vigorous challenge to any attempt to strip New York's dedicated teachers of this essential and fundamental right — which is a vital safeguard ensuring quality education, academic freedom and classroom stability.
Where We Stand
- Though it's been on the books for more than a century, New York state's tenure law remains wildly misunderstood. Tenure does not mean a job for life. Nor does it protect bad teachers. Tenure simply means that a teacher cannot be terminated for cause without having formal charges presented and without the fundamental right of due process, which ensures a fair hearing. Due process is an American value and is in our Bill of Rights. Constitutional protections apply to all Americans and are not reserved only for the wealthy elite.
- Tenure is also a protection that must be earned. Under the law, teachers must prove themselves by serving a probationary period of three years. During that time, school officials have an obligation to carefully evaluate that teacher's job performance. If after three years — some 550 school days and, perhaps, more than 2,500 classes — the local school board votes to grant a teacher tenure, that teacher is simply entitled to a fair hearing before a neutral third party if accused of incompetence or wrongdoing.
- Tenure is not a cause of low-student achievement. In fact, tenure helps safeguard children's ability to receive a quality education and ensures classroom stability because it provides teachers the freedom to advocate for their students without fear of reprisal. Because tenure exists, teachers in New York can — and do — speak out against the state's obsession with standardized testing. Tenure enables teachers to speak out against underfunding and vital cuts to academic programs. And tenure protects teachers when they speak out about conditions that pose a threat to a student's welfare.
- The concept of tenure is not unique. Similar protections requiring due process are granted to other public-service professionals including police officers and firefighters. Blaming low-student achievement on teacher tenure — (a meritless claim that is not supported by any evidence) — is like blaming the due process granted to police officers for crime, and blaming the due process granted to firefighters for fire.
- New York's teacher tenure law was amended in 2012 to address criticism that 3020-a due process hearings took too long and cost too much. Now, all hearings, by law, must be resolved within 155 days from the point in which formal charges are presented against a teacher. The improved tenure law means that, in those rare cases in which the public trust is violated, guilty teachers are being fired more quickly. And, when school districts misuse the law or bring baseless charges, innocent teachers are being returned to the classroom more swiftly.
- It is important to note: even prior to the 2012 amendment to the tenure law, 84 percent of discipline cases brought against teachers were resolved before ever reaching the hearing stage, according to a NYSUT legal review.
- Teachers' unions do not negotiate tenure. The first statewide tenure statute was enacted in 1917, (and before that in NYC) — 50 years before public-sector unions existed in New York state.
- If the wealthy elite and anti-union forces truly care about enhancing the quality of public education in New York state, they would partner with parents and unions in fighting for state budgets that ensured equitable and adequate funding for all schools and in opposing the state's tax cap, which exacerbates the significant fiscal constraints under which schools are being forced to operate. Instead, however, the wealthy elite and anti-union forces are missing-in-action in these critically important battles.
- The real reason some of our public schools are struggling is poverty. All of our students deserve a quality education — not just those who happen to be the children of hedge fund millionaires. But poverty is an issue never addressed by the wealthy elite because they don't want to pay their fair share in taxes.
- The obscene profit-motivated attacks on the rights of working people in places like California and New York are why America no longer has the world's largest middle class. Fundamental rights for workers are essential to a decent standard of living in New York state. And fundamental rights for teachers are essential to fairness and defending what students need.
Source: NYSUT Communications
(Harris v. Quinn)
The Issue: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn narrowly ruled that home health care workers in Illinois were not full-fledged public employees and therefore cannot be required to pay a “fair share” union fee to the union doing collective bargaining on their behalf. The 5-4 opinion, written by conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito, was critical of laws supporting “fair share” fees but did not overturn them.
In this case, funded by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation — a virulently anti-worker group — several Illinois state employees contended that they could not be required to pay fees for union services provided to them. They argued that even paying for the representational services the union must provide to them under its duty of fair representation — such as negotiating, administering and enforcing the collective bargaining agreement — violated their First Amendment right not to support a union in any way.
The Harris v. Quinn case was a direct challenge to a 1977 Supreme Court decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Public Education — in which the justices determined that public-sector unions could, consistent with the First Amendment, collect agency fees or "fair share fees” — for the services that, by law, they must provide to every member of the bargaining unit, even those who choose not to join the union. Abood has been reaffirmed by the Court on several occasions since it was decided more than 35 years ago.
NYSUT and its national affiliates — the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association — strongly support the “fair share” principle established in Abood. Fair share simply ensures that all workers represented in negotiations, both union and non-union, equally share not only in the benefits, but also in the costs of negotiations and contract administration. Under fair share or agency fee arrangements, the First Amendment rights of those who choose not to join the union are protected by provisions that allow them to opt out of supporting the union's political activities.
Implications of Harris
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff, Harris, and other home health care workers in Illinois are not full-fledged state employees and so cannot be required to pay “fair share” fees to the public-sector union for collective bargaining purposes.
While it did not overturn “fair share” provisions nationwide, the Supreme Court nonetheless has tilted the playing field to make it harder for working people to organize and maintain unions in home health care settings where there is great need for the living wages and quality standard of care safeguards for which unions stand.
Local leaders are encouraged to discuss this issue with members and to emphasize the benefits of union membership and solidarity.
Where We Stand
According to the Center for American Progress:
(Harris v. Quinn)
The Issue: The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Harris v. Quinn narrowly ruled that home health care workers in Illinois were not full-fledged public employees and therefore cannot be required to pay a “fair share” union fee to the union doing collective bargaining on their behalf. The 5-4 opinion, written by conservative Supreme Court Justice Alito, was critical of laws supporting “fair share” fees but did not overturn them.
In this case, funded by the anti-union National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation — a virulently anti-worker group — several Illinois state employees contended that they could not be required to pay fees for union services provided to them. They argued that even paying for the representational services the union must provide to them under its duty of fair representation — such as negotiating, administering and enforcing the collective bargaining agreement — violated their First Amendment right not to support a union in any way.
The Harris v. Quinn case was a direct challenge to a 1977 Supreme Court decision, Abood v. Detroit Board of Public Education — in which the justices determined that public-sector unions could, consistent with the First Amendment, collect agency fees or "fair share fees” — for the services that, by law, they must provide to every member of the bargaining unit, even those who choose not to join the union. Abood has been reaffirmed by the Court on several occasions since it was decided more than 35 years ago.
NYSUT and its national affiliates — the American Federation of Teachers and the National Education Association — strongly support the “fair share” principle established in Abood. Fair share simply ensures that all workers represented in negotiations, both union and non-union, equally share not only in the benefits, but also in the costs of negotiations and contract administration. Under fair share or agency fee arrangements, the First Amendment rights of those who choose not to join the union are protected by provisions that allow them to opt out of supporting the union's political activities.
Implications of Harris
In its decision, the Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff, Harris, and other home health care workers in Illinois are not full-fledged state employees and so cannot be required to pay “fair share” fees to the public-sector union for collective bargaining purposes.
While it did not overturn “fair share” provisions nationwide, the Supreme Court nonetheless has tilted the playing field to make it harder for working people to organize and maintain unions in home health care settings where there is great need for the living wages and quality standard of care safeguards for which unions stand.
Local leaders are encouraged to discuss this issue with members and to emphasize the benefits of union membership and solidarity.
Where We Stand
- “The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Harris v. Quinn tilts the playing field to make it harder for home health care workers to organize and maintain unions — an area of service where there is a burning need for the living wages and the quality standards of care that unions stand for.”
- The Supreme Court of the United States today struck a blow against working families with its decision. While it did not overturn “fair share” provisions nationwide, the Supreme Court nonetheless has tilted the playing field to make it harder for working people to organize and maintain unions in home health care settings.”
- “Fair share, known as “agency fee” in New York state, which the Supreme Court opinion left intact, is a common-sense way to ensure that every worker who shares the benefits and protections of a contract contributes something toward maintaining it. Fair share does not force workers to join a union. It simply ensures that all workers share the costs of negotiations and contract administration that all enjoy — whether or not they signed a union card.”
- “Nonetheless, the opinion written by Justice Alito is deeply disturbing because it signals clearly that the conservative majority is deeply critical of union-won retirement security and basic organizing rights. That rhetoric is an invitation for further assaults on working people and will embolden right-wing groups to push even harder against unions and worker rights.”
- ”The Harris v. Quinn case is another attack by hedge funders and millionaires, who will do anything to destroy the protections that unions have won for working people, including competitive salaries, good health benefits, protections against unjust firings and a voice on the job. The Rev. Martin Luther King Jr. said this about right-to-work laws in 1961: ‘In our glorious fight for civil rights, we must guard against being fooled by false slogans, such as ‘right to work.’ It is a law to rob us of our civil rights and job rights. Its purpose is to destroy labor unions and the freedom of collective bargaining by which unions have improved wages and working conditions of everyone.’”
“Virtually all teachers are members of NYSUT. They clearly see the value of belonging to a strong union not only to hold on to their hard-earned pay and decent benefits, but in having a voice on the job and a defender in Albany and Washington, D.C. against those waging war on tenure and other job protections for working people.”
“The benefits of belonging to a union are well-documented. Union members earn better pay, enjoy better benefits and have a voice in decision-making in the workplace. By participating in their unions in a true, democratic structure, union members also can have a strong voice in public policy decisions that affect them in the classroom, in their school communities, in health care facilities, on campuses and wherever they work.” - “The Court’s ruling leaves little doubt that war is being waged against the middle class. Front groups funded by the wealthy elite are spending millions to try to strip away any power or voice that workers have on the job. The competitive pay, good benefits, protection against unjust firings and retirement security that workers receive come because they have organized.”
- “Unions will always be the best way to ensure that every family can enjoy quality public services and economic prosperity.”
According to the Center for American Progress:
- Workers in right-to-work states earn lower wages. Lower wages decrease consumer demand, resulting in fewer jobs. Oklahoma, for example, lost one-third of its manufacturing jobs after the state passed a right-to-work law.
- Workers in right-to-work states are less likely to have health insurance.
- Right-to-work laws undermine unions, which give workers a voice on the job.
Source: NYSUT Media Relations
The Issue: As health-care costs continue to rise, and the fiscal challenges faced by school districts - and taxpayers - increase, the health-insurance benefits received by teachers and other public-sector workers are being attacked as being both too costly and generous. But, much like the criticism regarding public pensions, the criticism surrounding teachers' health insurance is often based upon myth.
Where We Stand: The vast majority of teachers throughout New York state are making double-digit contributions toward their health insurance coverage. Some locals, to help districts and taxpayers in these challenging economic times, have also agreed in negotiations to opt for less generous coverage plans. Retired teachers are also paying for their coverage.
In fact, local teachers unions statewide - in the spirit of helping New York and taxpayers weather these tough economic times - have made numerous sacrifices at the bargaining table, including: deferring pay raises; accepting pay freezes and furlough days; and increasing their share of health-insurance premiums to help districts cut costs, lower property taxes and protect education programs.
WHEN THEY SAY: Why do teachers deserve such generous health benefits?
YOU SAY: In looking at health benefits, it's important to remember they are the product of collective bargaining. In some years, when school districts did not have money for raises, they offered improvements to the health benefits they provided teachers. And, though teachers are fortunate enough to receive good health insurance, we have shown our willingness repeatedly to share in the costs of that coverage to help ease the financial pressures on school districts and taxpayers.
WHEN THEY SAY: Teachers could save taxpayers a significant amount of money if they stopped demanding free health insurance and began contributing toward their own coverage.
YOU SAY: The notion that the state's teachers are all receiving free health care is a myth. Teachers all across New York state, through their locals, have sought to take the burden off taxpayers by agreeing to higher co-pays and other modifications to our health plan to save the district money. The state School Boards Association, based on a survey in which 500 school districts responded, has determined that current teachers, on average, are paying about 10 percent for individual coverage and between 12 and 15 percent toward the cost of family coverage. IN East Williston we pay 20%.
WHEN THEY SAY: When it comes to the private sector, the health coverage enjoyed by millions of Americans stands to be impacted adversely by 'Obamacare,' while NYSUT members will continue to receive their generous health benefits unfettered since the presidents' plan exempts many labor unions. Thus, NYSUT's support for Obamacare was largely self-serving.
YOU SAY: It is true that NYSUT supports President Obama's Affordable Care Act. The union believes that good health insurance coverage should be a basic right, and that all Americans should have access to affordable, top-quality health insurance. The president's plan will level the playing field for working families by expanding health coverage to more than 30 million additional Americans. It also ensures that access to affordable health care is within the reach of all people - no matter their economic status - an important step toward helping students succeed in the classroom since children who do not have health insurance and access to affordable care are more often at risk of falling behind in school.
The Issue: As health-care costs continue to rise, and the fiscal challenges faced by school districts - and taxpayers - increase, the health-insurance benefits received by teachers and other public-sector workers are being attacked as being both too costly and generous. But, much like the criticism regarding public pensions, the criticism surrounding teachers' health insurance is often based upon myth.
Where We Stand: The vast majority of teachers throughout New York state are making double-digit contributions toward their health insurance coverage. Some locals, to help districts and taxpayers in these challenging economic times, have also agreed in negotiations to opt for less generous coverage plans. Retired teachers are also paying for their coverage.
In fact, local teachers unions statewide - in the spirit of helping New York and taxpayers weather these tough economic times - have made numerous sacrifices at the bargaining table, including: deferring pay raises; accepting pay freezes and furlough days; and increasing their share of health-insurance premiums to help districts cut costs, lower property taxes and protect education programs.
WHEN THEY SAY: Why do teachers deserve such generous health benefits?
YOU SAY: In looking at health benefits, it's important to remember they are the product of collective bargaining. In some years, when school districts did not have money for raises, they offered improvements to the health benefits they provided teachers. And, though teachers are fortunate enough to receive good health insurance, we have shown our willingness repeatedly to share in the costs of that coverage to help ease the financial pressures on school districts and taxpayers.
WHEN THEY SAY: Teachers could save taxpayers a significant amount of money if they stopped demanding free health insurance and began contributing toward their own coverage.
YOU SAY: The notion that the state's teachers are all receiving free health care is a myth. Teachers all across New York state, through their locals, have sought to take the burden off taxpayers by agreeing to higher co-pays and other modifications to our health plan to save the district money. The state School Boards Association, based on a survey in which 500 school districts responded, has determined that current teachers, on average, are paying about 10 percent for individual coverage and between 12 and 15 percent toward the cost of family coverage. IN East Williston we pay 20%.
WHEN THEY SAY: When it comes to the private sector, the health coverage enjoyed by millions of Americans stands to be impacted adversely by 'Obamacare,' while NYSUT members will continue to receive their generous health benefits unfettered since the presidents' plan exempts many labor unions. Thus, NYSUT's support for Obamacare was largely self-serving.
YOU SAY: It is true that NYSUT supports President Obama's Affordable Care Act. The union believes that good health insurance coverage should be a basic right, and that all Americans should have access to affordable, top-quality health insurance. The president's plan will level the playing field for working families by expanding health coverage to more than 30 million additional Americans. It also ensures that access to affordable health care is within the reach of all people - no matter their economic status - an important step toward helping students succeed in the classroom since children who do not have health insurance and access to affordable care are more often at risk of falling behind in school.
Source: NYSUT Media Relations
The Issue: Two consecutive years of increases in state education aid have failed to make up for the billions of dollars cut from public education between 2009 and 2011. Making matters worse is the state's undemocratic property tax cap, which undermines community efforts to fully fund schools and worsens the achievement gap.
Students are harmed by increased class sizes, cuts to courses and programs, and the loss of thousands of teachers and school staff. The continued defunding of the state's public colleges and universities and loss of faculty and courses erodes student access and opportunity, while community health care is deeply undermined by cuts to the state's teaching hospitals.
Where We Stand: The state must fully fund public schools and colleges, providing the resources students deserve at a time of ever escalating academic standards. It's unacceptable that close to three-quarters of school districts are receiving less state aid than they were five years ago and that public higher education is being starved of vital resources.
Lawmakers must decisively respond to the ruling by the state's highest court that directed New York state to correct its longstanding practice of underfunding the education of students in low-wealth, high-needs communities.
Investing in public education is the engine to economic strength for our communities and our state and is supported in poll after poll by three-quarters of citizens.
WHEN THEY SAY: School funding is not being cut since it went up each of the last two budgets.
YOU SAY: Those much-needed increases are still far less than the $3-billion cut sustained by public education between 2009 and 2011. What's more, school districts are further hamstrung by the state's undemocratic tax-cap law, which limits the amount of revenue communities can raise locally. As a result, more than 30,000 teaching and school-related jobs have been lost over the last few years; class sizes have increased, programs and services have been slashed and extracurricular activities have been discontinued.
WHEN THEY SAY: Still, New York state spends more money per student than any other state in the nation.
YOU SAY: State-by-state comparisons are misleading. New York state schools educate the most diverse student body in the nation and large numbers of the nation's most vulnerable children. New York City, for example, educates 50,000 homeless children and students who speak 140 different languages. Buffalo is the second poorest city in the country. These challenges, and a higher cost of living, challenge the Empire State to provide services other states don't. Even so, New York state leads the nation in measures of educational excellence.
WHEN THEY SAY: Money isn't the answer. Gov. Cuomo claims New York spends the most per student but ranks 38th in student performance.
YOU SAY: Not true. The facts are:
WHEN THEY SAY: Local taxpayers have too heavy a burden.
Polls consistently show that 75 percent of citizens support investing more in public education. The burden on local taxpayers has increased because the state isn't doing its fair share. This shift to local taxpayers is unfair and penalizes our most vulnerable students who live in low-wealth districts. This only worsens the achievement gap between students in wealthy and low-income districts, and robs students in high-needs districts of their right to a quality education. The state needs to meet its legal (and moral) obligations as detailed in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity ruling.
The Issue: Two consecutive years of increases in state education aid have failed to make up for the billions of dollars cut from public education between 2009 and 2011. Making matters worse is the state's undemocratic property tax cap, which undermines community efforts to fully fund schools and worsens the achievement gap.
Students are harmed by increased class sizes, cuts to courses and programs, and the loss of thousands of teachers and school staff. The continued defunding of the state's public colleges and universities and loss of faculty and courses erodes student access and opportunity, while community health care is deeply undermined by cuts to the state's teaching hospitals.
Where We Stand: The state must fully fund public schools and colleges, providing the resources students deserve at a time of ever escalating academic standards. It's unacceptable that close to three-quarters of school districts are receiving less state aid than they were five years ago and that public higher education is being starved of vital resources.
Lawmakers must decisively respond to the ruling by the state's highest court that directed New York state to correct its longstanding practice of underfunding the education of students in low-wealth, high-needs communities.
Investing in public education is the engine to economic strength for our communities and our state and is supported in poll after poll by three-quarters of citizens.
WHEN THEY SAY: School funding is not being cut since it went up each of the last two budgets.
YOU SAY: Those much-needed increases are still far less than the $3-billion cut sustained by public education between 2009 and 2011. What's more, school districts are further hamstrung by the state's undemocratic tax-cap law, which limits the amount of revenue communities can raise locally. As a result, more than 30,000 teaching and school-related jobs have been lost over the last few years; class sizes have increased, programs and services have been slashed and extracurricular activities have been discontinued.
WHEN THEY SAY: Still, New York state spends more money per student than any other state in the nation.
YOU SAY: State-by-state comparisons are misleading. New York state schools educate the most diverse student body in the nation and large numbers of the nation's most vulnerable children. New York City, for example, educates 50,000 homeless children and students who speak 140 different languages. Buffalo is the second poorest city in the country. These challenges, and a higher cost of living, challenge the Empire State to provide services other states don't. Even so, New York state leads the nation in measures of educational excellence.
WHEN THEY SAY: Money isn't the answer. Gov. Cuomo claims New York spends the most per student but ranks 38th in student performance.
YOU SAY: Not true. The facts are:
- The independent publication, Education Week, reported in 2012 that New York state's public-school graduation rate between 1999 and 2009 soared by 20 percent. That accounted for the second-highest rate in the nation, only behind Arizona.
- Education Week has consistently ranked New York state's public education system among the top three in the nation and, in 2012, ranked the state's public schools second best in the country in student performance.
- New York state, for the last two consecutive years, has dominated Newsweek's annual list of the nation's best public high schools. The state has accounted for more than 10 percent of the schools named to the Newsweek top 1,000 list. Among the criteria considered for inclusion on the list were four-year on-time graduation rates and the percentage of graduates accepted into college.
- New York ranks second in the nation for the percentage of students successfully completing college-level Advanced Placement courses.
- A 2012 CNBC study also ranked New York's education system as first in the nation for providing what business needs.
WHEN THEY SAY: Local taxpayers have too heavy a burden.
Polls consistently show that 75 percent of citizens support investing more in public education. The burden on local taxpayers has increased because the state isn't doing its fair share. This shift to local taxpayers is unfair and penalizes our most vulnerable students who live in low-wealth districts. This only worsens the achievement gap between students in wealthy and low-income districts, and robs students in high-needs districts of their right to a quality education. The state needs to meet its legal (and moral) obligations as detailed in the Campaign for Fiscal Equity ruling.
Source: NYSUT Media Relations
The Issue: The state's 1967 Taylor law aimed to create a fair process for negotiating contracts in the public sector, granting public employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Yet, the law also made it illegal for public workers to strike. This provision, agreed to by workers in recognition of the benefit to the public good, gave New York state unprecedented labor peace and stability in the provision of public services. Unfortunately, some employers exploited this unintended loophole, which enabled management to stall negotiations until a contract was expired so that it then could unilaterally impose changes in pay and working conditions. This tactic burdened public workers, who without the ability to strike, were forced to renegotiate everything they had earned in an expired contract. The 1982 Triborough Amendment is what finally leveled the playing field between management and public employees, requiring public employers to maintain the terms and conditions of an expired contract until a new one could be negotiated.
Talking Points
The Issue: The state's 1967 Taylor law aimed to create a fair process for negotiating contracts in the public sector, granting public employees the right to organize and bargain collectively. Yet, the law also made it illegal for public workers to strike. This provision, agreed to by workers in recognition of the benefit to the public good, gave New York state unprecedented labor peace and stability in the provision of public services. Unfortunately, some employers exploited this unintended loophole, which enabled management to stall negotiations until a contract was expired so that it then could unilaterally impose changes in pay and working conditions. This tactic burdened public workers, who without the ability to strike, were forced to renegotiate everything they had earned in an expired contract. The 1982 Triborough Amendment is what finally leveled the playing field between management and public employees, requiring public employers to maintain the terms and conditions of an expired contract until a new one could be negotiated.
Talking Points
- Triborough creates a stable environment that allows for both sides to negotiate in good faith and expedite successor agreements. In fact, even in school districts where there is impasse, there is typically no disruption in services and schools remain in session. Triborough is a major factor in ensuring such constancy.
- Statistics provided by PERB show there were dozens of strikes disrupting public services annually in the years preceding enactment of the Triborough Amendment. Public sector strikes, which hit an all-time high of 28 in 1975, plunged after Triborough's passage in 1982. And in recent years, there have been zero.
- Despite the often-heard arguments by Triborough critics, it's not true that keeping a contract in place locks in unmanageable costs. In the average school district budget, for example, both parties already know the impact of continuing an expired contract, and Triborough allows the process to proceed with transparency and predictability. Most importantly, it ensures that public services will always be there.
- Public workers want stability, not crisis. Triborough has been critical in ensuring that the delivery of vital public services - most especially the education of our children - is not disrupted by protracted labor disputes.
- Public workers gave up the right to strike in recognition that labor peace serves the public good. Triborough ensures that labor remains able to bargain on a level playing field with management.
Source: NYSUT Media Relations
The Issue: Continued attack on public-pension benefits are not only unfair to public employees, but would cause significant financial harm to the middle class. All workers should be able to count on a dignified retirement with a pension they have earned. Public sector expenses typically represent deferred compensation for modest starting salaries and years of service. The fact is, too, that so-called "reforms" are pushed by Wall Street firms that stand to make significant profit from changes to the public pension system.
Where We StandRecent and continual efforts by law- and policymakers to reduce pension benefits are misguided and often times, based on falsehoods regarding, and prejudices against, the public-sector work force. Public employees are NOT retiring with "golden parachutes" like many on Wall Street. The fact is, the average public-employee pension benefit falls between $19,000 and $35,000 per year.
Continued attempts to pass legislation that would divert employee contributions into 401(k) plans not only stand to endanger the financial security of the current work force, but the pensions of retired public employees, as well. Corporate CEOs, who have million-dollar pensions themselves, are often the ones promoting campaigns to slash the pensions of New York public employees. Rather than undermining retirement security of public employees, we should be ensuring that corporations and the wealthiest New Yorkers pay their fair share of taxes.
The big financial firms helping to promote these campaigns stand to make billions in profits from managing private savings plans. We shouldn't divert billions of taxpayer dollars from pension funds to those on Wall Street who defrauded our pension plans and crashed our economy.
Contrary to what proponents say, so-called pension reform proposals would do nothing to relieve school districts and other government agencies from the pension cost spikes caused by Wall Street's greed. What's more, public-sector workers already have made significant sacrifices to help the state offset its financial challenges. Budgets should not be balanced on the backs of workers.
New York state's pension system has repeatedly been recognized by The Pew Center as one of the best-managed retirement systems in the nation. The National Institute for Retirement Security has determined that pensions are half the cost of 401(k) plans, and state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli has said 401(k) plans would provide less retirement security.
Public employees and their unions support common-sense reform to close loopholes that allow a small minority to receive excessive pensions. But making deep, across-the-board cuts in retirement benefits is unfair to hard-working public employees.
WHEN THEY SAY: Increasing pension obligations are squeezing school districts and local governments and are driving up taxes.
YOU SAY: Actually, pension reform proposals would do nothing to relieve school districts and local governments of pension spikes since those are a direct result of Wall Street performance. The truth is that in many past years, public employers made little or no contribution to pension costs.
WHEN THEY SAY: Public unions interest lies only in protecting the "fat" pensions of their members.
YOU SAY: The truth is, public employees are NOT retiring with "golden parachutes" like many on Wall Street. The average public-employee pension benefit is $19,000 per year. Making deep, across-the-board cuts in retirement benefits is unfair to hard-working public employees and would cause significant financial pain to the state's middle class and erode the state's economy. All workers deserve to count on a pension they have earned.
WHEN THEY SAY: Public-employee unions and the workers they represent don't care about the financial challenges faced by the state and taxpayers.
YOU SAY: Nothing could be further from the truth. Workers in public service and their unions are taxpayers and proud supporters of their communities. Public-sector workers have made many sacrifices to help the state offset financial challenges. The real problem is that corporations and millionaires aren't doing their fair share
The Issue: Continued attack on public-pension benefits are not only unfair to public employees, but would cause significant financial harm to the middle class. All workers should be able to count on a dignified retirement with a pension they have earned. Public sector expenses typically represent deferred compensation for modest starting salaries and years of service. The fact is, too, that so-called "reforms" are pushed by Wall Street firms that stand to make significant profit from changes to the public pension system.
Where We StandRecent and continual efforts by law- and policymakers to reduce pension benefits are misguided and often times, based on falsehoods regarding, and prejudices against, the public-sector work force. Public employees are NOT retiring with "golden parachutes" like many on Wall Street. The fact is, the average public-employee pension benefit falls between $19,000 and $35,000 per year.
Continued attempts to pass legislation that would divert employee contributions into 401(k) plans not only stand to endanger the financial security of the current work force, but the pensions of retired public employees, as well. Corporate CEOs, who have million-dollar pensions themselves, are often the ones promoting campaigns to slash the pensions of New York public employees. Rather than undermining retirement security of public employees, we should be ensuring that corporations and the wealthiest New Yorkers pay their fair share of taxes.
The big financial firms helping to promote these campaigns stand to make billions in profits from managing private savings plans. We shouldn't divert billions of taxpayer dollars from pension funds to those on Wall Street who defrauded our pension plans and crashed our economy.
Contrary to what proponents say, so-called pension reform proposals would do nothing to relieve school districts and other government agencies from the pension cost spikes caused by Wall Street's greed. What's more, public-sector workers already have made significant sacrifices to help the state offset its financial challenges. Budgets should not be balanced on the backs of workers.
New York state's pension system has repeatedly been recognized by The Pew Center as one of the best-managed retirement systems in the nation. The National Institute for Retirement Security has determined that pensions are half the cost of 401(k) plans, and state Comptroller Tom DiNapoli has said 401(k) plans would provide less retirement security.
Public employees and their unions support common-sense reform to close loopholes that allow a small minority to receive excessive pensions. But making deep, across-the-board cuts in retirement benefits is unfair to hard-working public employees.
WHEN THEY SAY: Increasing pension obligations are squeezing school districts and local governments and are driving up taxes.
YOU SAY: Actually, pension reform proposals would do nothing to relieve school districts and local governments of pension spikes since those are a direct result of Wall Street performance. The truth is that in many past years, public employers made little or no contribution to pension costs.
WHEN THEY SAY: Public unions interest lies only in protecting the "fat" pensions of their members.
YOU SAY: The truth is, public employees are NOT retiring with "golden parachutes" like many on Wall Street. The average public-employee pension benefit is $19,000 per year. Making deep, across-the-board cuts in retirement benefits is unfair to hard-working public employees and would cause significant financial pain to the state's middle class and erode the state's economy. All workers deserve to count on a pension they have earned.
WHEN THEY SAY: Public-employee unions and the workers they represent don't care about the financial challenges faced by the state and taxpayers.
YOU SAY: Nothing could be further from the truth. Workers in public service and their unions are taxpayers and proud supporters of their communities. Public-sector workers have made many sacrifices to help the state offset financial challenges. The real problem is that corporations and millionaires aren't doing their fair share
Source: NYSUT Media Relations
THE ISSUE: In the name of "education reform," critics of public schools and teacher unions often resort to the argument that merit pay - performance-based financial rewards to individual teachers - would help improve student performance. But not only is there no evidence to support such a claim, one nationwide study actually found merit pay to be ineffective. And, some education experts say merit pay can be detrimental to schools.
TALKING POINTS: Education reform that actually improves teaching and learning requires a much more comprehensive approach rather than a one-dimensional strategy such as individual pay bonuses.
THE ISSUE: In the name of "education reform," critics of public schools and teacher unions often resort to the argument that merit pay - performance-based financial rewards to individual teachers - would help improve student performance. But not only is there no evidence to support such a claim, one nationwide study actually found merit pay to be ineffective. And, some education experts say merit pay can be detrimental to schools.
TALKING POINTS: Education reform that actually improves teaching and learning requires a much more comprehensive approach rather than a one-dimensional strategy such as individual pay bonuses.
- A 2010 study by Vanderbilt University's National Center on Performance Incentives - considered one of the most scientifically rigorous studies ever to be performed on the issue - found performance pay to individual teachers, provided without other supports, did not help students. Vanderbilt researchers found that, despite bonuses of $15,000 offered to middle-school math teachers, there were no gains in test scores by students.
- Education scholars such as New York University's Diane Ravitch have pointed out too that merit pay to teachers is an idea that has been around since the 1920s. It has been tried again and again, but never survives because it simply doesn't work. It demoralizes the workforce and undercuts the goals of a school system by pitting employee against employee.
- Extra pay given only to individuals could also be counterproductive, as it might prompt teachers to avoid taking on students who may be difficult to teach. However, a financial reward given on a school-wide level, would allow schools to focus their best teachers on the most challenging students.