Watching the daily attacks on teachers and their unions unfold in Wisconsin and other states should motivate most activists to take action. But in Florida, the activist options for teachers and education staff professionals are somewhat limited.
Walking off the job or reporting to work late is not an appropriate action and it comes with harsh consequences. It is important for all FEA members to follow the law.
The state prohibits strikes and work slowdowns or stoppages. The definition of "strike" in Florida law is quite broad and contemplates ‘a concerted act or omission by employees.’ The definition includes “the concerted failure of employees to report for duty’ and ‘the concerted absence of employees from their positions.” The penalties placed on teachers and ESPs could be severe.
The prohibition against public sector employee strikes is established both in the Florida constitution and in Chapter 447.505, Florida Statutes. The Law applies the prohibition to: "public employee organizations or anyone acting in its behalf", including organizational "officers, representatives and agents". The law also prohibits instigating or supporting a strike.
The definition of "strike" states:
"Strike" means the concerted failure of employees to report for duty; the concerted absence of employees from their positions; the concerted stoppage of work by employees; the concerted submission of resignations by employees; the concerted abstinence in whole or in part by any group of employees from the full and faithful performance of the duties of employment with a public employer for the purpose of inducing, influencing, condoning, or coercing a change in the terms and conditions of employment or the rights, privileges, or obligations of public employment, or participating in a deliberate and concerted course of conduct which adversely affects the services of the public employer; the concerted failure of employees to report for work after the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement; and picketing in furtherance of a work stoppage. The term "strike" shall also mean any overt preparation, including, but not limited to, the establishment of strike funds with regard to the above-listed activities.
PERC has applied the term "strike" to certain concerted activities even in the absence of withholding of service. In one instance, the unusually high number of requests for bus repairs was announced effective on the date of layoffs. PERC ruled that such action might be a concerted activity, and thus a strike, if intended to affect the terms and conditions of employment. PERC ordered an investigation to determine if this was the case.
Certain other activity, such as sick outs, may also be construed to be a strike if concerted and intended to affect terms and conditions of employment.
The law provides for severe sanctions against the employees and the union participating in a strike. PERC and/or the employer can file an injunction to stop the strike in circuit court. These types of cases are given priority as emergency cases.
In summary, the organization, even if it publicly takes a stand against a strike, can still have sanctions imposed against it for up to $20,000 per calendar day or in some instances more if it is determined that the approximate cost to the public is in excess of $20,000. Unions would have to publicly ensure that no serving union official participated in the strike.
Perhaps more importantly, employees that participate can be terminated, may only be reemployed on a probationary basis, have their salaries frozen for a year and most drastically, lose their retirement if found to have violated any state law against strikes.
.
Tuesday, March 8, 2011
Reason for 1974 Switch Away from Employee Retirement Contributions
A 1974 pension document shows how the state benefited from a switch away from employee contributions. A copy of the August 1974 Florida Retirement Bulletin, unearthed by a member of the Public Pensions Trustees Association, gives a glimpse into why the state stopped requiring employees to contribute part of their salaries to the Florida Retirement System: to save the state money. Here's the 36-year-old document:Download 1974 Florida Retirement Bulletin
Back in 1974, employees contributed 4 percent of their salaries to their retirement fund while special risk members (police, firefighters, etc.) contributed 8 percent. But if those employees left the state workforce, they were entitled to have their contribution returned to them in the form of a refund -- costing the state that year a whopping $30 million and setting up an unfunded liability. "The primary purpose in changing FRS to a non-contributory plan is to help eliminate the unfunded liability documented in past actuarial studies of state retirement systems," the newsletter states.
The end result of the change was to increase the state's contribution from 4 to 9 percent for regular class members -- where it remains today -- and from 8 to 13 percent for special risk members.
Today, Gov. Rick Scott wants state and local government to withdraw 5 percent of its contributions and have employees make up the difference. He is doing it to save the state money again -- only it's the reverse of 1974, with the money flowing into the retirement system coming from employees, not employers. The governor gets a $1.3 billion savings to the state by withholding 5 percent of the state's contribution to the FRS or, in the case of local governments, from local government revenue sharing plans. It's not clear whether employees could withdraw that money if they leave the FRS, under Scott's plan, as they did in the past.
So far, the Florida Senate is considering asking employees to shift money from employee paychecks to their retirement accounts at rates of about 2 percent of their salaries, while the House has yet to propose a plan.
Back in 1974, employees contributed 4 percent of their salaries to their retirement fund while special risk members (police, firefighters, etc.) contributed 8 percent. But if those employees left the state workforce, they were entitled to have their contribution returned to them in the form of a refund -- costing the state that year a whopping $30 million and setting up an unfunded liability. "The primary purpose in changing FRS to a non-contributory plan is to help eliminate the unfunded liability documented in past actuarial studies of state retirement systems," the newsletter states.
The end result of the change was to increase the state's contribution from 4 to 9 percent for regular class members -- where it remains today -- and from 8 to 13 percent for special risk members.
Today, Gov. Rick Scott wants state and local government to withdraw 5 percent of its contributions and have employees make up the difference. He is doing it to save the state money again -- only it's the reverse of 1974, with the money flowing into the retirement system coming from employees, not employers. The governor gets a $1.3 billion savings to the state by withholding 5 percent of the state's contribution to the FRS or, in the case of local governments, from local government revenue sharing plans. It's not clear whether employees could withdraw that money if they leave the FRS, under Scott's plan, as they did in the past.
So far, the Florida Senate is considering asking employees to shift money from employee paychecks to their retirement accounts at rates of about 2 percent of their salaries, while the House has yet to propose a plan.
Monday, March 7, 2011
Union workers protest legislative bill
St. Pete Times The Buzz: Florida Politics
March 7, 2011
Workers protest outside committee room on bill to 'silence their speech'
About two dozen current and retired state workers, all union members, stood with blue tape over their mouths outside a Senate hearing room Monday in protest of a bill aimed at banning them from political activity.
The measure, sponsored by Sen. John Thrasher, would prevent unions from using worker dues to finance political committees and from allowing workers to voluntarily have their dues deducted from their wages as a payroll deduction. It is the first in a series of bills that tighten the grip on public employee unions.
"It's revenge,'' said Scott Whittle, a high school teacher from Lincoln High School in Tallahassee who stood outside the Senate Community Affairs Committee meeting. He said Thrasher led the charge last year to "shove down our throats" the bill to eliminate teacher tenure, which was vetoed by then-Gov. Charlie Crist.
Take Back the State Rally, Tues. Mar. 8 -4-6pm
RALLY FOR SOLIDARITY AND CHANGE
"AWAKE THE STATE RALLY": This Tuesday , MARCH 8 from 4-6p.m. your PSCFA/UFF/FEA invites you to attend the local "Take Back the State" rally outside of Representative Clay Ford's office at 1804 W. Garden St., Pensacola, FL 32506
WEAR RED for SOLIDARITY!!
"AWAKE THE STATE RALLY": This Tuesday , MARCH 8 from 4-6p.m. your PSCFA/UFF/FEA invites you to attend the local "Take Back the State" rally outside of Representative Clay Ford's office at 1804 W. Garden St., Pensacola, FL 32506
WEAR RED for SOLIDARITY!!
Dueling Rallies Over Budget Battles
TALLAHASSEE --
As state lawmakers prepare for a marathon legislative session, Floridians angry over budget cuts and politics are also headed to Tallahassee to make sure their voices are heard.
Two rallies are scheduled from both sides of the battle over budget cuts.
On the side supporting a slimmer budget, Florida Tea Party organizers said they will hold a Save Our State Rally on Tuesday to show their support for Gov. Rick Scott.
Also on Tuesday, a coalition of liberal groups against slashing the state budget said it is hosting an Awake the State Rally, also in Tallahassee.
However, over two dozen other Awake the State rallies are scheduled across Florida on Tuesday.
As state lawmakers prepare for a marathon legislative session, Floridians angry over budget cuts and politics are also headed to Tallahassee to make sure their voices are heard.
Two rallies are scheduled from both sides of the battle over budget cuts.
On the side supporting a slimmer budget, Florida Tea Party organizers said they will hold a Save Our State Rally on Tuesday to show their support for Gov. Rick Scott.
Also on Tuesday, a coalition of liberal groups against slashing the state budget said it is hosting an Awake the State Rally, also in Tallahassee.
However, over two dozen other Awake the State rallies are scheduled across Florida on Tuesday.
Major pension reform battle looms in Legislature
By Mary Ellen Klas, Times/Herald Tallahassee Bureau
In Print: Sunday, March 6, 2011
TALLAHASSEE — As 90-year-old Ed Hoffman stood before a House committee and urged them "not to reduce the benefits for officers and law enforcement who put their lives on the line," his eyes welled up with tears.
"You could not hold a gun to my head and make me go into a correctional institution for $31,000," said Hoffman, a former West Palm Beach firefighter.
He spoke of the five police officers and the corrections officer killed in the line of duty in Florida in the last two months. "Those people don't deserve to be treated in a manner that would make them contribute to a pension system without adequate salaries," he said. "It's not fair. It's not right."
The question of whether Florida's government workers should have their benefits scaled back to help balance the state budget goes to the core of the emotional pension reform debate that lies ahead for Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature.
During the 60-day session, lawmakers plan the broadest overhaul to the Florida Retirement System since 1974, the last time workers paid directly into their retirement accounts.
On one side are employees and unions who argue that they have already made financial sacrifices to fill a $3.6 billion budget gap.
They say they have agreed to wage concessions, overtime, furloughs and increased responsibilities in the past few years to preserve their benefits packages amid deep budget cuts. And they say they are willing to make more concessions, with the hope that legislators will restore cuts when the economy improves.
On the other side is Scott, lobbying groups for the state's largest corporations, and a disparate but growing tea party movement in Florida. They believe the pension system has a glaring inequity: it doesn't require employees to contribute to their retirement accounts and it gives two-thirds of all workers a guaranteed pension, regardless of investment returns.
For Scott, who spent a lifetime in the private sector and drew a public paycheck only when he was enlisted in the Navy, Florida's pension is simply unfair. In the private sector, the governor says, employees are expected to contribute to their retirement accounts, most of which are 401(k)-style plans that don't guarantee returns.
"I think it's only fair that those who participate in the pension plan contribute," Scott said.
He argues that it is not right for state workers to rely on taxpayer-financed pension plans that guarantee an income stream when those same taxpayers face a future of uncertainty because of the Wall Street turmoil and the declines in their investments. His argument is echoed by Barney Bishop, director of Associated Industries of Florida, a business-backed lobbyist group.
"We support efforts to bring Florida's pension system more in line with the private sector," Bishop told the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee in February. "After all, it's taxpayers' money, and taxpayers are hurting."
He said the corporations that back his group want reforms that require state employees to have a defined contribution plan "so that state employees have some skin in the game. To date, the public sector has not felt the pain of the private sector in terms of unemployment."
To that end, the governor called for scrapping the defined benefit plan for new hires and requiring that all new employees get 401(k)-style defined contribution plans that they can take with them when they leave government.
He also proposed ending the Deferred Retirement Option Program, known as DROP, beginning July 1. The popular program encourages older workers to retire early, before their health insurance expenses rise, by allowing them to draw their pension check and return to work. Critics say it allows state workers to receive two state paychecks.
Scott also proposed eliminating cost-of-living adjustments and reducing the annual service credit for retirement benefits to 1.6 percent for most members of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), and 2 percent for police, fire and other special-risk employees. The estimated savings to state and local governments to the governor's plan: $1.4 billion, money the governor would pour back into the state budget.
Employee groups counter that the governor's plan fundamentally mischaracterizes the intent of the pension plan. They say their retirement funds, combined with their salaries, equal their full compensation package and together it is their "skin in the game."
In negotiations with state and local governments, they have agreed to defer payment from their salaries into their retirement accounts as a tradeoff. State and local governments can then use the investment earnings from the funds to offset their costs and employees get a guaranteed income when they retire.
In recent years, however, some local governments violated that pact when they failed to make contributions to the retirement accounts, negotiated richer benefits than they were willing to fund, or borrowed against it by taking our surplus revenue. And the crash of stock markets only worsened the situation. The result left a number of cities owing more money into their pension plans than they now pay in salaries.
It will be up to the Legislature to sort things out. So far, the Senate is the only chamber to have proposed a compromise. It is taking a two-pronged approach: addressing the call for strengthening local government retirement plans in one bill and modifying the FRS and adding employee contributions in another. One Senate plan would require employees to contribute 2 percent of their salaries into the retirement funds but not eliminate the defined benefit program.
Complicating the solution is the state's $3.6 billion budget deficit and the promise from the governor and legislators that they will raise taxes or close tax loopholes to do it. State workers salaries are seen as an available target.
Legislators were faced with a different set of problems in 1974, when they moved away from having employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their retirement accounts. At the time, employees contributed 4 percent of their salaries, while special-risk members (police, firefighters, prison guards) contributed 8 percent.
Under that arrangement, an employee who left the state work force was entitled to have his pension fund contribution returned in the form of a refund. In 1974, those refunds cost the state a whopping $30 million and left a big hole in the pension plan. Since employees couldn't take the employer's share of the retirement fund when they left, the state agreed to pay all of the retirement benefit and cut back on employee salaries.
The result was an increase in the state's contribution from 4 to 9 percent for regular class members — where it remains today — and from 8 to 13 percent for special-risk members.
For Ed Hoffman, it means drawing the same monthly pension benefit — $786 — today as he did when he retired in 1970 after earning $16,000 a year. He added that he took a second career with the Police Benevolent Association to earn Social Security.
"Not everybody is receiving those fabulous pensions that some people have accused public employees of receiving," he said. "It's no cushy deal. I have to work to eat."
In Print: Sunday, March 6, 2011
TALLAHASSEE — As 90-year-old Ed Hoffman stood before a House committee and urged them "not to reduce the benefits for officers and law enforcement who put their lives on the line," his eyes welled up with tears.
"You could not hold a gun to my head and make me go into a correctional institution for $31,000," said Hoffman, a former West Palm Beach firefighter.
He spoke of the five police officers and the corrections officer killed in the line of duty in Florida in the last two months. "Those people don't deserve to be treated in a manner that would make them contribute to a pension system without adequate salaries," he said. "It's not fair. It's not right."
The question of whether Florida's government workers should have their benefits scaled back to help balance the state budget goes to the core of the emotional pension reform debate that lies ahead for Gov. Rick Scott and the Florida Legislature.
During the 60-day session, lawmakers plan the broadest overhaul to the Florida Retirement System since 1974, the last time workers paid directly into their retirement accounts.
On one side are employees and unions who argue that they have already made financial sacrifices to fill a $3.6 billion budget gap.
They say they have agreed to wage concessions, overtime, furloughs and increased responsibilities in the past few years to preserve their benefits packages amid deep budget cuts. And they say they are willing to make more concessions, with the hope that legislators will restore cuts when the economy improves.
On the other side is Scott, lobbying groups for the state's largest corporations, and a disparate but growing tea party movement in Florida. They believe the pension system has a glaring inequity: it doesn't require employees to contribute to their retirement accounts and it gives two-thirds of all workers a guaranteed pension, regardless of investment returns.
For Scott, who spent a lifetime in the private sector and drew a public paycheck only when he was enlisted in the Navy, Florida's pension is simply unfair. In the private sector, the governor says, employees are expected to contribute to their retirement accounts, most of which are 401(k)-style plans that don't guarantee returns.
"I think it's only fair that those who participate in the pension plan contribute," Scott said.
He argues that it is not right for state workers to rely on taxpayer-financed pension plans that guarantee an income stream when those same taxpayers face a future of uncertainty because of the Wall Street turmoil and the declines in their investments. His argument is echoed by Barney Bishop, director of Associated Industries of Florida, a business-backed lobbyist group.
"We support efforts to bring Florida's pension system more in line with the private sector," Bishop told the Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Committee in February. "After all, it's taxpayers' money, and taxpayers are hurting."
He said the corporations that back his group want reforms that require state employees to have a defined contribution plan "so that state employees have some skin in the game. To date, the public sector has not felt the pain of the private sector in terms of unemployment."
To that end, the governor called for scrapping the defined benefit plan for new hires and requiring that all new employees get 401(k)-style defined contribution plans that they can take with them when they leave government.
He also proposed ending the Deferred Retirement Option Program, known as DROP, beginning July 1. The popular program encourages older workers to retire early, before their health insurance expenses rise, by allowing them to draw their pension check and return to work. Critics say it allows state workers to receive two state paychecks.
Scott also proposed eliminating cost-of-living adjustments and reducing the annual service credit for retirement benefits to 1.6 percent for most members of the Florida Retirement System (FRS), and 2 percent for police, fire and other special-risk employees. The estimated savings to state and local governments to the governor's plan: $1.4 billion, money the governor would pour back into the state budget.
Employee groups counter that the governor's plan fundamentally mischaracterizes the intent of the pension plan. They say their retirement funds, combined with their salaries, equal their full compensation package and together it is their "skin in the game."
In negotiations with state and local governments, they have agreed to defer payment from their salaries into their retirement accounts as a tradeoff. State and local governments can then use the investment earnings from the funds to offset their costs and employees get a guaranteed income when they retire.
In recent years, however, some local governments violated that pact when they failed to make contributions to the retirement accounts, negotiated richer benefits than they were willing to fund, or borrowed against it by taking our surplus revenue. And the crash of stock markets only worsened the situation. The result left a number of cities owing more money into their pension plans than they now pay in salaries.
It will be up to the Legislature to sort things out. So far, the Senate is the only chamber to have proposed a compromise. It is taking a two-pronged approach: addressing the call for strengthening local government retirement plans in one bill and modifying the FRS and adding employee contributions in another. One Senate plan would require employees to contribute 2 percent of their salaries into the retirement funds but not eliminate the defined benefit program.
Complicating the solution is the state's $3.6 billion budget deficit and the promise from the governor and legislators that they will raise taxes or close tax loopholes to do it. State workers salaries are seen as an available target.
Legislators were faced with a different set of problems in 1974, when they moved away from having employees contribute a portion of their salaries into their retirement accounts. At the time, employees contributed 4 percent of their salaries, while special-risk members (police, firefighters, prison guards) contributed 8 percent.
Under that arrangement, an employee who left the state work force was entitled to have his pension fund contribution returned in the form of a refund. In 1974, those refunds cost the state a whopping $30 million and left a big hole in the pension plan. Since employees couldn't take the employer's share of the retirement fund when they left, the state agreed to pay all of the retirement benefit and cut back on employee salaries.
The result was an increase in the state's contribution from 4 to 9 percent for regular class members — where it remains today — and from 8 to 13 percent for special-risk members.
For Ed Hoffman, it means drawing the same monthly pension benefit — $786 — today as he did when he retired in 1970 after earning $16,000 a year. He added that he took a second career with the Police Benevolent Association to earn Social Security.
"Not everybody is receiving those fabulous pensions that some people have accused public employees of receiving," he said. "It's no cushy deal. I have to work to eat."
Friday, February 18, 2011
FRS Pension Reform Bill Update 2/15/11
Late yesterday, 2/15/2011, Sen. Ring introduced the much-anticipated FRS pension reform bill, SB 1130 (154 pages). FEA PPA has done a quick review of the 154-page bill and found the bill makes the following changes listed below. This is a preliminary listing of what SB 1130 does, but this preliminary report may not be completely accurate and/or comprehensive . FEA PPA is continuing to read and analyze the bill and will provide you with additional information as we develop it.
Sen. Ring will be holding a hearing on SB 1130 on Friday, 2/18/2011 to receive public input and comment. FEA has arranged for one or two FEA members who have a Legislator from their local area sitting on the committee to come in offer public comment..FEA is also working with the labor union and public employee coalition organizations to generate a large turn-out for this hearing, so that the Chairman and other members of the Committee see and feel the concern and interest of the large number of public employees from a diverse range of backgrounds and circumstances who will be negatively impacted by this legislation. Hearing location details:
Friday, 2/18/2011
Hearing time: 8:00 a.m. – 12 noon
Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Cmte
412 Knott Office Building
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL
SB 1130 reforms the Florida Retirement System (FRS) --
1. Closes defined benefit plan to new members, effective 7/1/11.
2. Changes vesting for new members of the defined contribution plan on or after 7/1/11. They will vest in graded increments over a five-year period.
3. Requires employee contributions for all members, effective 7/1/11, but the employee contribution amount is not specified. The rates probably will be decided in Senator Alexander's Budget Committee and will probably be included in the budget conforming bill (near the end of the 2011 legislative session)
4. The employer rates are listed for 2011 and 2012 so I am hopeful the employee rates will be phased in but the employer rates may be changed in the conforming bill also
5. Changes the definitions of “compensation” and “average final compensation” to exclude overtime and lump sum annual leave for all members, effective 7/1/11.
6. Allows reenrollment in the defined contribution plan.
7. Sets the employer contribution rates (which will be subject to change depending on other economic and policy issues).
8. DROP appears to be continued with no apparent changes except for those hired after 7/1/11.
9. HIS is not impacted by this bill.
10. The bill includes an actuarial study that will look at how DROP is funded
Pat Dix, J.D.
FEA Public Policy Advocacy
Florida Education Association
Sen. Ring will be holding a hearing on SB 1130 on Friday, 2/18/2011 to receive public input and comment. FEA has arranged for one or two FEA members who have a Legislator from their local area sitting on the committee to come in offer public comment..FEA is also working with the labor union and public employee coalition organizations to generate a large turn-out for this hearing, so that the Chairman and other members of the Committee see and feel the concern and interest of the large number of public employees from a diverse range of backgrounds and circumstances who will be negatively impacted by this legislation. Hearing location details:
Friday, 2/18/2011
Hearing time: 8:00 a.m. – 12 noon
Senate Governmental Oversight and Accountability Cmte
412 Knott Office Building
The Capitol
Tallahassee, FL
SB 1130 reforms the Florida Retirement System (FRS) --
1. Closes defined benefit plan to new members, effective 7/1/11.
2. Changes vesting for new members of the defined contribution plan on or after 7/1/11. They will vest in graded increments over a five-year period.
3. Requires employee contributions for all members, effective 7/1/11, but the employee contribution amount is not specified. The rates probably will be decided in Senator Alexander's Budget Committee and will probably be included in the budget conforming bill (near the end of the 2011 legislative session)
4. The employer rates are listed for 2011 and 2012 so I am hopeful the employee rates will be phased in but the employer rates may be changed in the conforming bill also
5. Changes the definitions of “compensation” and “average final compensation” to exclude overtime and lump sum annual leave for all members, effective 7/1/11.
6. Allows reenrollment in the defined contribution plan.
7. Sets the employer contribution rates (which will be subject to change depending on other economic and policy issues).
8. DROP appears to be continued with no apparent changes except for those hired after 7/1/11.
9. HIS is not impacted by this bill.
10. The bill includes an actuarial study that will look at how DROP is funded
Pat Dix, J.D.
FEA Public Policy Advocacy
Florida Education Association
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)