Listening to Nathan Saunders makes me crazy

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC teacher retirement is funded by teacher contributions.

That avoids the question. Do DC teachers still have a pension plan? If so, it is NOT entirely funded by teacher contributions.

R u suggesting that teachers should not have a pension plan? Or that if we have one, it's squandering public funds? What do you think this is? 19th Century London?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC teacher retirement is funded by teacher contributions.

That avoids the question. Do DC teachers still have a pension plan? If so, it is NOT entirely funded by teacher contributions.

R u suggesting that teachers should not have a pension plan? Or that if we have one, it's squandering public funds? What do you think this is? 19th Century London?

Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?

[Anonymous]

Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?


You get 401K AND social security.

DCPS teachers don't.

[Anonymous]

so it's us and them, now is it?

Remember, teachers pay taxes too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?


You get 401K AND social security.

DCPS teachers don't.

Here is my problem with pensions. They put teachers in a position that they can't walk away even if they hate teaching with out a huge loss in terms of retirement. You are right no Social Security so you are stuck. It is a lousy bargain all around. I have several friends not from DC that describe how miserable their parents were the last ten years of their careers because they hated teaching but could not afford to walk away from the pension. It is a relic that hurts teachers, taxpayers and kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?


You get 401K AND social security.

DCPS teachers don't.

Here is my problem with pensions. They put teachers in a position that they can't walk away even if they hate teaching with out a huge loss in terms of retirement. You are right no Social Security so you are stuck. It is a lousy bargain all around. I have several friends not from DC that describe how miserable their parents were the last ten years of their careers because they hated teaching but could not afford to walk away from the pension. It is a relic that hurts teachers, taxpayers and kids.

Am I missing something here? As a DCPS teacher, I thought my retirement was totally self- funded (money I set aside in a TIA CREFF). Were they kicking anything in? Can't recall. Certainly nothing to write home about. And I was getting credit for Social Security, at least according to the statement I get once a year. Do you mean retirement if you stay there for 20 - 30 years? Wow, those lifers should be compensated. Poor things, that is punishment enough staying in DCPS that long!
I need to check with our family accountant as to whether he has managed to get my retirement back from DCPS, now that I've moved on. That's a whole other adventure!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:DC teacher retirement is funded by teacher contributions.

That avoids the question. Do DC teachers still have a pension plan? If so, it is NOT entirely funded by teacher contributions.

R u suggesting that teachers should not have a pension plan? Or that if we have one, it's squandering public funds? What do you think this is? 19th Century London?

Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?

You misunderstood my reference to 19th Century London, which isn't surprising. Perhaps you've never read Dickens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?


You get 401K AND social security.

DCPS teachers don't.

Here is my problem with pensions. They put teachers in a position that they can't walk away even if they hate teaching with out a huge loss in terms of retirement. You are right no Social Security so you are stuck. It is a lousy bargain all around. I have several friends not from DC that describe how miserable their parents were the last ten years of their careers because they hated teaching but could not afford to walk away from the pension. It is a relic that hurts teachers, taxpayers and kids.

Actually, teachers can leave and transfer the money they have in their retirement account as long as they are vested.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Not the PP, but yes I would be completely in favor of you not having a pension plan! It's not 19th century London sweetpea, it's the 21st century. Get a 401K and fund your own damn retirement like the rest of us. You're not paying for us, and we already pay your salary. Why should we pay for your retirement too?


You get 401K AND social security.

DCPS teachers don't.

Here is my problem with pensions. They put teachers in a position that they can't walk away even if they hate teaching with out a huge loss in terms of retirement. You are right no Social Security so you are stuck. It is a lousy bargain all around. I have several friends not from DC that describe how miserable their parents were the last ten years of their careers because they hated teaching but could not afford to walk away from the pension. It is a relic that hurts teachers, taxpayers and kids.

Actually, teachers can leave and transfer the money they have in their retirement account as long as they are vested.

THere are also situations where, if not for the paltry pay, people would stay in teaching or go into teaching. With higher pay all around, more teachers could fund their own retirement and come and go more freely.

Also, please be advised that in the present system, teachers can retire with full benefits after 20 years, so it's hard to imagine people staying in a job they hate for half their employment period.

[Anonymous]

This is typical: Look up the history of 401k plans. They were originally meant for very wealthy individuals and execs to supplement their retirement savings with tax free savings. Public and private sector workers had pension funds and they were the norm. Companies decided they liked them for all workers because it was cheaper than kicking into pensions, and shifted the entire burden of retirement saving onto employees. The results are plain now. Half of workers have NO retirement savings (Mostly working class and lower paid individuals). Other workers that do have 401ks have an average balance of something around $26,000. People that are able to successfully save for retirement using just a 401k are upper middle class and wealthy individuals alone. If you don't think that all these people who have NO retirement savings because they work at jobs like McDonalds or Kmart, or bus tables at a restaurant all their lives OR are relying on 401k plans alone (especially if they are working class) aren't going to rely on SS and Medicare (and YOU the tax payer) when you are older, get real.

The right wing especially has demonized public employees and pension funds and pitted the private sector against the public sector. I'm sick of it. I am for reform of pension funds to make them sustainable, but the question you should be asking is: why are the only people who have a pension fund in the private sector the CEOs? You pay now for retirement out of corporate profits or you shift the burden later to taxpayers because you will have a lot of poor senior citizens with no safety net.

[Anonymous]

I just read where Nathan suspended his VP from her 150K salary. Then above I am reading about the pension plans. Something is not adding up.

[Anonymous]

That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Not Exactly, Parker dumped Saunders when Saunders was VP and Parker was President.

[Anonymous]

What goes around, comes around.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:That has always been the case for the WTU. They have more often than not been screwed by their own leadership. George Parker was the only one that was straight with them and they dumped him.

Not Exactly, Parker dumped Saunders when Saunders was VP and Parker was President.

Given what we know now (that Saunders is, by all appearances, an unhinged, race-baiting nutjob) Parker's actions seem a lot more understandable.