Claremont Unified rescinds benefits r...

Claremont Unified rescinds benefits ruling

There are 18 comments on the Inland Valley Daily Bulletin story from Sep 17, 2010, titled Claremont Unified rescinds benefits ruling. In it, Inland Valley Daily Bulletin reports that:

The school district has reversed a decision to charge recently retired teachers and certificated employees each month for their health benefits.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at Inland Valley Daily Bulletin.

Joe moma

Ontario, CA

#1 Sep 18, 2010
If they hadn't recinded that, they would have been sued and lost BIG time !!!
They believed they had a difference of opinion of the language....yea right, they tried to pull a fast one and didn't get away with it......it's all BS.
Pomona Guy

Long Beach, CA

#2 Sep 18, 2010
Add a parcel tax - that will fix it
tell the truth

United States

#3 Sep 18, 2010
To bad.
Kim

Kapolei, HI

#4 Sep 18, 2010
I wish CVUSD would do this.
Rufus T Firefly

Rancho Cucamonga, CA

#5 Sep 18, 2010
Congrats to the teachers "mafia" and your victory! You just keep adding to the already bankrupt situation and will eventually have your members get shafted in the long run.
Claremont Parent

Hesperia, CA

#6 Sep 18, 2010
Thank you CUSD. Following the contract is the right thing to do.
Joe moma

Ontario, CA

#7 Sep 18, 2010
Rufus T Firefly wrote:
Congrats to the teachers "mafia" and your victory! You just keep adding to the already bankrupt situation and will eventually have your members get shafted in the long run.
If YOU had a contract and they reneged you would not be happy about either, Remember these folks were offered an early retirement, they didn't have to take it, Now the district offered and signed a contract that allowed them to retire early BASED on the contract that the insurance would be covered ! Otherwise they couldn't afford to retire based on what the District tried to pull AFTER the fact !! They're crooked and decieveing ways would have had them LOOSE big time in court. Nobody put a gun to the Districts head to negociate and sign a valid contract.
CUSD Teacher

Hesperia, CA

#8 Sep 18, 2010
Thank you CFA for helping the District see the light. Our union is stronger that it has ever been. We know that the state is in tough ecomomic times, but CUSD administrators needed to follow the contract and keep to their word. I am glad that we have a union that stands up for our rights.
Pat J

Santa Ana, CA

#9 Sep 18, 2010
This is the right thing to do. A contract is a contract. People who work years and years with no cost premimums health care as one of their retirement benefits should not have them taken away, or charged a fee, after retirement. What goes on with the current employees and their contracts are a separate issue and should be addressed separately.
hunkie boy

Moreno Valley, CA

#10 Sep 18, 2010
most are stereo liberals cannot do anything else.
Lose Lose

Yucca Valley, CA

#11 Sep 18, 2010
Most contracts provide the same level of contribution toward H & W benefits for retirees as for current employees. In this case, retirees (who receive a guaranteed 2% increase annually) will get a better deal than current employees - who are already taking a rollback due to furlough days! Way to go CFA...next year your teachers can take a few extra days or a deeper paycut to keep those benefits flowing to retirees. Sounds like the district is doing a better job negotiating for teachers then their own union.
CUSD Teacher

Hesperia, CA

#12 Sep 18, 2010
Lose Lose wrote:
Most contracts provide the same level of contribution toward H & W benefits for retirees as for current employees. In this case, retirees (who receive a guaranteed 2% increase annually) will get a better deal than current employees - who are already taking a rollback due to furlough days! Way to go CFA...next year your teachers can take a few extra days or a deeper paycut to keep those benefits flowing to retirees. Sounds like the district is doing a better job negotiating for teachers then their own union.
We did not take furlough days and obviously you have not read our contract or you would know that the district is required to pay the entire premium for early retirees.

Our members who have taken early retirement are saving the district hunderds of thousands of dollars. If the district's proposal was implemented, hardly any teacher would retire before 65. This would cost the district way more than the amounts the district pays for benefits.

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Get your facts right before you comment.

Since: Apr 10

Walnut, CA

#13 Sep 18, 2010
Lose Lose wrote:
Most contracts provide the same level of contribution toward H & W benefits for retirees as for current employees. In this case, retirees (who receive a guaranteed 2% increase annually) will get a better deal than current employees - who are already taking a rollback due to furlough days! Way to go CFA...next year your teachers can take a few extra days or a deeper paycut to keep those benefits flowing to retirees. Sounds like the district is doing a better job negotiating for teachers then their own union.
Kind of sad, that you would voice animosity toward your retired former colleagues, as you do here. I am a CalPERS retiree, and constanlty keeping up with issues, while advocating for my still-working former colleagues.

A good thing about the furlough: It is better to take a temporary furlough than a permanent pay cut. The furlough does not affect the base salary amount used to determine your retirement benefit.

You might get a shock on that annual 2% increase. I don't know if the CalSTRS COLA is like CalPERS but, I suspect is is figured the same way. The CalPERS 2% COLA is not guaranteed. They must go by the CPI. The increase can be from 2%, back down to zero. This year all of the two-year CalPERS retirees, who should have received their first COLA, got zero. I was a 2007, retiree and got a partial COLA of 1.4%.
Lose Lose

Yucca Valley, CA

#14 Sep 18, 2010
CUSD Teacher wrote:
<quoted text>
We did not take furlough days and obviously you have not read our contract or you would know that the district is required to pay the entire premium for early retirees.
Our members who have taken early retirement are saving the district hunderds of thousands of dollars. If the district's proposal was implemented, hardly any teacher would retire before 65. This would cost the district way more than the amounts the district pays for benefits.
A little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Get your facts right before you comment.
Nope, not buying it. People eventually will retire at no cost to the district. An early retirement benefits the recipient and provides temporary relief to a district budget. The cost of the program is a net "push" since people will eventually retire without an incentive. And very few people wait until 65, as you well know if you are a teacher. The STRS maxes out around 61.5. I believe retirees should get the same benefits as current employees until age 65 - and not feather their nest while people who continue to work pay the price. Sounds like you should go get some meds with your district-paid insurance plan and calm down a bit.
Maui Mama

Long Beach, CA

#15 Sep 18, 2010
Hey Hunkie Boy! You are so right. We didn't want to do anything else but teach your children and prepare them for their future. That's why we teach...to touch the future and there is NO nobler profession. The student loans, low pay, lack of respect are so worth it when you see them as adults and they say, "Thanks." Unlike malcontents like you!!!
hunkie boy

Moreno Valley, CA

#16 Sep 19, 2010
Maui Mama, enter the 21st century, online education will save billions,no overpaid administrators,no unqualified horny housewives elected to school boards,no pedophile teachers, no drunk bus drivers, the current education system is broke and antiquated.CHANGE is needed.prepare to seek another line of work,enlighten yourself!
Garibaldi

Columbus, OH

#17 Nov 20, 2010
Everybody knows that unions are immune to economic realities.

While the taxpayers of Claremont are losing the jobs or having their pay cut, public union members are protected.
Claremont Teacher

Upland, CA

#18 Nov 24, 2010
Garibaldi wrote:
Everybody knows that unions are immune to economic realities.
While the taxpayers of Claremont are losing the jobs or having their pay cut, public union members are protected.
First of all, you seem to be "imune" from what you should have learned in your spelling lessons. Secondly, in California teachers have lost thousands of jobs over the last two years. We were not "protected" from job lost, cuts in pay, nor student lock-out days, where schools were shut down. Get the facts.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Claremont Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
It was political 1 hr political 1
Packies like to beat women 12 hr round 3 1
Fun places outside Glendora 21 hr uplanders 4
News UCLA FOOTBALL NOTEBOOK: Neuheisel says Prince w... (Sep '10) Thu Trojan 32,267
Muslim vs German stores Thu fools anyway 2
Garage Door Service Claremont May 19 GDRClaremont 1
News Madeleine Albright a war criminal? Scripps Coll... May 13 Newt G s Next Wife 7
More from around the web

Personal Finance

Claremont Mortgages