tvc184

Teacher Retirement System bill....

Recommended Posts

Apparently the governor is about to sign SB 202 which is about the TRS or Teacher Retirement System.

KFDM posted a news story that I happen to see on Facebook. It names/interviews a teacher from Southeast Texas who is a retiree but now wants to go back to work. That sounds like a great deal. But he blames the governor from likely keeping him from a job.

What is the governor about to do that will keep him from working? He is about to sign that bill (apparently) that says..... (drum roll 🥁) if a retired teacher works for a school district, the school district must pay for his retirement benefits that normally come out of the teacher’s check. That’s right folks, the evil governor appears ready to sign a bill that says if you are retired but return to work, the school district has to pick up the percentage of your salary that normally is paid into the system. That means the teacher gets to keep more of his/her own money.

Apparently that is a very bad thing. Facebook page is lit up with calling the governor an idiot, not caring, has no clue and so on. I would think that if the public employer had to pay the employees retirement for him/her it would be a good thing. Apparently not if you are governor Abbott.

So like I do with most issues, I looked up the bill. It passed 31-0 in the Senate and 143-4 in the House. So with a vote combined of 174–4, it looked like near unanimous support from the Republicans and the Democrats for one end of the state to the other. In a rare  bipartisan move, the legislature said that the retiree need to keep more of his/her own money and for that, the governor is an idiot.

Therein lies some of the stupidity of some comments about politics. Without any clue about the bill, what it said or who supported it, political lines are drawn by perceived differences in party, class, race or whatever.

Here is the article from KFDM.


https://www.kfdm.com/news/local/retired-teacher-says-texas-senate-bill-is-preventing-him-from-returning-to-the-classroom

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
1

The problem is that most smaller school districts will now not be able to afford to hire retired teachers due to the fact that they will have to kick in the 15% to TRS.

Before, if a retired teacher sat out a year (which is mandatory) then rehired to teach (which enables the teacher to draw two salaries) that teacher had to kick in the 15% of the rehire salary to TRS.

There are a lot of school districts that hire retired teachers but having them pay the 15% will knock most of these districts  out of the loop.

My wife just retired from teaching after 32 years. We are moving to the beach. She had planned to sit out her mandatory year and hire in at either East Chambers, Hamshire-Fannett, High Island or Galveston ISD (Crenshaw Elementary on Bolivar). Other than GISD, I highly doubt the other school districts will be willing to hire due to the 15%.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, AggiesAreWe said:

The problem is that most smaller school districts will now not be able to afford to hire retired teachers due to the fact that they will have to kick in the 15% to TRS.

Before, if a retired teacher sat out a year (which is mandatory) then rehired to teach (which enables the teacher to draw two salaries) that teacher had to kick in the 15% of the rehire salary to TRS.

There are a lot of school districts that hire retired teachers but having them pay the 15% will knock most of these districts  out of the loop.

My wife just retired from teaching after 32 years. We are moving to the beach. She had planned to sit out her mandatory year and hire in at either East Chambers, Hamshire-Fannett, High Island or Galveston ISD (Crenshaw Elementary on Bolivar). Other than GISD, I highly doubt the other school districts will be willing to hire due to the 15%.

 

High Island has money.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, AggiesAreWe said:

The problem is that most smaller school districts will now not be able to afford to hire retired teachers due to the fact that they will have to kick in the 15% to TRS.

Before, if a retired teacher sat out a year (which is mandatory) then rehired to teach (which enables the teacher to draw two salaries) that teacher had to kick in the 15% of the rehire salary to TRS.

There are a lot of school districts that hire retired teachers but having them pay the 15% will knock most of these districts  out of the loop.

My wife just retired from teaching after 32 years. We are moving to the beach. She had planned to sit out her mandatory year and hire in at either East Chambers, Hamshire-Fannett, High Island or Galveston ISD (Crenshaw Elementary on Bolivar). Other than GISD, I highly doubt the other school districts will be willing to hire due to the 15%.

 

Since I did not read the bill and have no dog in this fight, my only statement would be. 15% depending on pay would be somewhere between $6500-$7500 in cost to a district. Show us one school district that could not afford an estimated $41 per day extra for a teacher with xx years experience.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I understand the issue.

Like or dislike the bill, I think the comedy or perhaps disgusting part  is so many comments are against the governor like he single-handedly decided who pays what. That would be against the law and in fact it was almost unanimous across-the-board and almost every legislator in the  the state thought it was a great  idea.

Republicans, Democrats, men, women, White/Black/Hispanics, Tea Party conservatives..... almost everybody thought this was the way to go..... but it was Abbott’s fault.  😂

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Derf Nosneb said:

Since I did not read the bill and have no dog in this fight, my only statement would be. 15% depending on pay would be somewhere between $6500-$7500 in cost to a district. Show us one school district that could not afford an estimated $41 per day extra for a teacher with xx years experience.

You would be surprised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, tvc184 said:

I understand the issue.

Like or dislike the bill, I think the comedy or perhaps disgusting part  is so many comments are against the governor like he single-handedly decided who pays what. That would be against the law and in fact it was almost unanimous across-the-board and almost every legislator in the  the state thought it was a great  idea.

Republicans, Democrats, men, women, White/Black/Hispanics, Tea Party conservatives..... almost everybody thought this was the way to go..... but it was Abbott’s fault.  😂

I agree and so does my wife. She was ok with paying the 15%. She looked at it as a fee for getting two salaries.

This is definitely not about politics but obviously some want to make it out to be.

Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, AggiesAreWe said:

I agree and so does my wife. She was ok with paying the 15%. She looked at it as a fee for getting two salaries.

This is definitely not about politics but obviously some want to make it out to be.

Is it getting 2 salaries or is it getting your retirement benefits that you’ve paid in and a salary for the job you’re working for? I know it’s probably semantics, just trying to get some perspective. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...

  • Member Statistics

    42,664
    Total Members
    1,837
    Most Online
    Big Chief100
    Newest Member
    Big Chief100
    Joined


×
  • Create New...