The SAUSD’s “2,700-member teachers union ratified a contract today that strips five years’ worth of retirement health insurance coverage from teachers with less than 10 years of Santa Ana Unified employment. It is expected to be approved Tuesday by the school board,” according to the O.C. Register.
The new contract will “end retirees’ full medical, dental and vision coverage at age 65; that coverage currently runs to age 70. An estimated 800 to 850 employees – all those hired after May 12, 1999 – will be affected, according to the teachers union.”
There is no other way to put this – the SAUSD teachers union screwed half their members. Apparently many teachers thought they were vested, but were not, and others were outright lied to by union representatives.
The net result? A divided workforce. Bad karma in the workplace. And very unhappy younger teachers who may well start looking to bail on the SAUSD.
Couldn’t the union leaders have cut back on all the teachers across the board, in an equitable fashion? Say for example stopping their health benefits at 68? Why pick on the younger teachers? What is the use of having a union if half the members get screwed?
I knew that the SAUSD teachers union was absolutely worthless when they endorsed SAUSD trustees Rob Richardson and Jose Hernandez last year. Why would they do that? These guys are the worst, along with Audrey Noji. Endorsing them was an absolute slap to the face of SAUSD’s parents and schoolchildren.
The wise guys at the SAUSD teachers union also worked to pass last year’s fraudulent Measure G – raising our property taxes, during a recession, for remodeling that wasn’t a life or death issue for the district.
I understand that the SAUSD teachers union is having elections soon. Time to vote the bums out! And time to elect a new union president who will actually stand up for SAUSD teachers and the families in this district.
Thanks Art 🙂 this was a great article. My benefits were cut and they want me to vote for the same person who cut them. I am very upset with this and you’re right…out with the OLD and in with NEW blood.
The sad thing is I believe the numbers were larger, one union spokesperson told me 1440 at an information meeting. I believe the people with less than 10 years may have been the majority. I need better numbers. I think it is very interesting that an extremely poorly worded agreement can strip away 5 years of benefits. The sad thing is that the younger teachers for the most part did not get the information clearly spelled out to them nor did the Reps. do them any justice by glossing over the issue, they just spouted vote YES. For me, I will just stay away from anything union endorsed.
Why should us taxpayers pay for their medical care at age 65 when they’re eligible for medicare like the rest of the working stiffs. Much cheaper for the district to just pay for a medicare supplement plan. The SA taxpayers have been getting screwed for many years by duplicating federal government benefits.
I am curious to know the type of coverage board members have. How about District employees? What about the principals? Got to know!
Maybe the taxpayers need to know that retired teacher’s still paid for their supplemental, just like the teacher’s who have a PPO–we pay a portion from our monthly salaries. The problem wasn’t just the cut of the supplemental benefits, it’s that they went back 10 years retroactive. If they wanted to start this policy now , for future teachers, at least they would know what they were getting into. Teachers who thought they had signed one contract 9 years ago just got the rug pulled out. It sets a precedent as well. Let’s see what the union and district decide to take away next year. A contract is a contract. As our new president has said, We are a nation of laws. Well SAEA just re-wrote the contract. So good bye 5 years of supplemental for the 1400 teachers who thought they had it. I know, teachers and gov’t workers are not the most popular right now, I’m sure that’s why the district went after this particular benefit.
maybe if the teachers union would join the real world that lay offs and cutbacks are EVERYWHERE yes even in this field . i think post 3 is correct .
Don’t get too excited over what the teachers think they have lost. The truth be known at age 65 the “lost” insurance turns into a supplemental policy anyway yet they still have to pay the same rates as they did when it was their primary coverage AND they have just agreed to pay 1% more per year for that premium. They completely missed the boat on the co-pays, which all doubled. Those already retired will be getting a nice shock when they next pay their great insurance premium and renew there medications.