Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
"Buried deep in the Senate budget proposal that lawmakers passed last week is a provision that would eliminate state-paid health retirement benefits for teachers and state employees who are hired after January 1, 2016."
One can only imagine the hate in the legislature for teachers. Why would anyone want to teach in NC?
"Recently, WalletHub examined 50 states plus the District of Columbia to determine the best and worst teaching opportunities in the country. They ranked states using 18 metrics, such as average starting salary and teacher job openings per capita. Let's take a look at the five worst states for teachers, according to these findings. (Note: stats are based on June 2015 numbers. Links will redirect to the most current data.)
1. North Carolina. Opportunity and Competition Rank: 50 of 51; Academic and Work Environment Rank: 46 of 51
With relatively minimal annual salaries and low public school spending per capita, North Carolina ranked dead last in this study, making it the single worst state for teachers. Litigation is even underway in the state regarding the failing schools and the lack of fundamental learning being provided to students. Teaching is a challenging job in the best of circumstances; teaching in North Carolina would likely compound the difficulties of the work, for even the most committed educator."
I'm a little confused. Won't people who are retired be covered by the Affordable Care act? So their employer no longer needs to provide post-retirement health insurance.
Now, there's no guarantee it will all still work when someone hired in 2016 retires?
I'm a little confused. Won't people who are retired be covered by the Affordable Care act? So their employer no longer needs to provide post-retirement health insurance.
Now, there's no guarantee it will all still work when someone hired in 2016 retires?
Pretty clear. ACA costs $$, unless you are on Medicare which means "eliminate state-paid health retirement benefits" will cost the workers.
I would not spend a penny on a 4 year degree and teaching cert. to teach in NC. Other states value teachers a lot more.
My understanding of this is that it is one component of some other state personnel changes.
While this may make NC worse in terms of teacher or state employee's...it certainly is a trend nationally, whether its pensions or healthcare costs, State's and the Feds are going the way of the private sector and reducing benefits for those that are actually not working.
One other item that I believe is being addressed is the ability to be fired for poor performance. Employee's in Raleigh continue to get shuffled around in positions for decades even though they are low performers and many times not even qualified for their current position. They never get fired. I think this applies less to teachers, but certainly any personnel changes will affect everyone receiving a state pay check.
Overall, those states that have strong unions are really in a different category than those that are "right to work" like NC. So NC will never be a Top 20 type state for state employees. That's context you don't usually get from News articles.
What I have heard is that the goal is to provide higher pay/current benefits to state employees but that the "after benefits" and termination requirements had to be addressed first, so you weren't just giving more money (even in retirement) for poor work performance. Just what I heard.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,706,106 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stagemomma
I'm a little confused. Won't people who are retired be covered by the Affordable Care act? So their employer no longer needs to provide post-retirement health insurance.
Now, there's no guarantee it will all still work when someone hired in 2016 retires?
Retirement health insurance covers until Medicare kicks in. Then it becomes the secondary insurance for that person.
I'm a little confused. Won't people who are retired be covered by the Affordable Care act? So their employer no longer needs to provide post-retirement health insurance.
Now, there's no guarantee it will all still work when someone hired in 2016 retires?
People on Medicare typically have another health plan besides Medicare (and not everyone who retires from the state is 65) because Medicare doesn't cover everything. Currently, retirees can use the State Health Plan just like current employees do (you have to be collecting state retirement, which has a formula to qualify; you can't just quit and claim you're "retired"), which was always one of the 'perks' of being a state employee to help make up for the low pay.
Everyone always says "Oh, you're a state employee, you get great benefits!" but that has not been true since probably the 1980s. Since then, they've gradually eroded the benefits to the point that pretty much the only "benefit" is generous vacation/sick leave, and they've tried to go after that before, too.
Then they scratch their heads and wonder why state govt can't attract trained, experienced people.
People on Medicare typically have another health plan besides Medicare (and not everyone who retires from the state is 65) because Medicare doesn't cover everything. Currently, retirees can use the State Health Plan just like current employees do (you have to be collecting state retirement, which has a formula to qualify; you can't just quit and claim you're "retired"), which was always one of the 'perks' of being a state employee to help make up for the low pay.
Everyone always says "Oh, you're a state employee, you get great benefits!" but that has not been true since probably the 1980s. Since then, they've gradually eroded the benefits to the point that pretty much the only "benefit" is generous vacation/sick leave, and they've tried to go after that before, too.
Then they scratch their heads and wonder why state govt can't attract trained, experienced people.
In the end, all the decisions made by the GA are aligned with the goal of keeping the income taxes lower for the wealthiest citizens of the state. Everything else is just means to that end. As for this particular issue, teachers don't matter to people who don't send their kids to public schools.
"Buried deep in the Senate budget proposal that lawmakers passed last week is a provision that would eliminate state-paid health retirement benefits for teachers and state employees who are hired after January 1, 2016."
One can only imagine the hate in the legislature for teachers. Why would anyone want to teach in NC?
"Recently, WalletHub examined 50 states plus the District of Columbia to determine the best and worst teaching opportunities in the country. They ranked states using 18 metrics, such as average starting salary and teacher job openings per capita. Let's take a look at the five worst states for teachers, according to these findings. (Note: stats are based on June 2015 numbers. Links will redirect to the most current data.)
1. North Carolina. Opportunity and Competition Rank: 50 of 51; Academic and Work Environment Rank: 46 of 51
With relatively minimal annual salaries and low public school spending per capita, North Carolina ranked dead last in this study, making it the single worst state for teachers. Litigation is even underway in the state regarding the failing schools and the lack of fundamental learning being provided to students. Teaching is a challenging job in the best of circumstances; teaching in North Carolina would likely compound the difficulties of the work, for even the most committed educator."
I think this is great. There is not reason why the tax payers should pay for people to not take care of themselves. There is a drug for everything now. That is what people consider healthcare these days. The amount of overweight and out of shape people working for the state is sickening. Teachers don't teach anymore they assign homework. Learning should be in the home. People have a choice. Don't teach in NC and don't become a state worker. Pay for your own choices in your life.
Great points! On the same token, there is not reason why the taxpayers should fund deadbeat churches who do not take care of themselves. There is a drug for everything now, that is what people consider opium of the masses these days. And speaking of overweight and out of shape people, have you noticed there's a lot of porkers going to church, including pastors/ministers and Sunday school teachers? Maybe instead of putting bibles in public schools, we should put scales in the churches! It's sickening I tell ya'! Sunday school teachers don't teach anymore, they assign homework, like, what kind of dinosaur did baby Jesus ride? If learning should be in the home like you say, why do we need churches sponging off the taxpayers? Don't preach in NC, and don't become a church goer. Pay for your own spiritual choices in life with tithes, not tax dollars!
Have you ever heard of the NFL? At least a lot of churches try and go good things for the communities that they are in. If you don't believe in God, and think you came from a ant I feel sorry for you.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
