Teacher Tenure/Unions/Government/Pensions

[macrockett]

For the federal government data, I went to the Cato Institute, which is generally libertarian. They follow the government pretty closely, as they aren't a big fan. Found some interesting things on government wages and benefits and on the size of government. Will post later.

[macrockett]

How Big is Government? It is getting bigger...

www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/09/22/how-big-is-american-government/print/

Federal Pay? The gap between federal government compensation and benefits and that of the private sector is growing...

www.cato-at-liberty.org/2009/08/24/federal-pay-continues-rapid-ascent/

[macrockett]

Gov urges action on pension reform
Comments

September 21, 2009, Chicago Sun Times

Illinois' public pension systems have become a $73 billion financial sinkhole. Without swift, effective reforms, these pension systems will wind up draining our state's resources and mortgaging our future for decades to come.

By exposing the pension bonanzas that some highly paid government retirees receive, the Chicago Sun-Times has performed a real public service. I commend reporters Chris Fusco, Tim Novak and Art Golab for their thoughtful, detailed reporting on this issue.

As your series noted, some retired state employees have found ways to game the pension system and fatten their annual benefits well into six figures.

However, these mega-pensions are only one factor in our state's current pension mess. I believe it is time to take action to put these pension funds back on solid ground and make sure the state can continue to meet its obligations, both to our retirees and to the many people who count on us for vital state services.

In my seven months as governor, I have been working to fix our state's enormous pension problems. In April, I signed a new law that gave me the power to overhaul the boards that guide our public pension systems and put well-regarded professionals in charge. The new law also requires those new members to follow strict ethics rules.

But those reforms, important as they are, are only the first steps. Earlier this year, I proposed fundamental changes in the retirement plans for future state workers, setting their pension benefits at levels that taxpayers can afford. I also proposed changing cost-of-living adjustments, so that retirees' benefits do not soar beyond taxpayers' ability to pay.

The Civic Federation, a nonpartisan watchdog group, called my proposals for pension plan reforms "reasonable," "historic," "courageous" and "long-overdue." Unfortunately, the General Assembly was unwilling to follow my lead and revamp our outdated, unaffordable public pension system.

But I will not give up on my responsibility as governor to make our public employee retirement plans fair and affordable. To help reach that goal, I have appointed the Illinois Pension Modernization Task Force to study the problem and report promptly on needed reforms.

I am sending a copy of the Sun-Times' "Pension Bonanza" series to every member of the pension task force, asking them to take a good, hard look at the abuses your reporters uncovered.

In particular, I am asking them to offer a solution to the problem of double-dipping, which allows "retired" government employees to collect hefty pensions while they're working in other high-paying government jobs.

As governor, I will make sure the state keeps its promises to retired schoolteachers, State Police officers and other workers who have faithfully served the people.

But in these tough financial times, when so many people in the private sector have seen their retirement accounts dwindle or even disappear, we need to make sure that Illinois taxpayers are not being asked to foot the bill for selfish abuses of our public pension systems.

Gov. Pat Quinn
----------------
Gee, and it only seems like a few years ago the pension problem was only $40B, or was it $50B. Well who's counting. I'm sure the General Assembly in Springfield will come to its senses.

If they don't, I hope the voters are listening....

[macrockett]

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1105edit1nov05,0,3039087.story

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/chi-oped1029youthoct29,0,5624807.story (original comments)


chicagotribune.com
War: Meeks vs. CTU

November 5, 2009

"Chicago Public Schools have a gang problem. The gang, however, is not the BDs (Black Disciples), the gang is not the GDs (Gangster Disciples), the gang is not the Vice Lords and the gang is not the Four Corner Hustlers. The gang is the Chicago Teachers Union."

-- State Sen. James T. Meeks, D-Chicago, chair of the Illinois Senate's Education Committee, Oct. 17, 2009.



Across Illinois, timid politicians of both major parties have declined to demand significant education reforms: greater accountability for the public education industry in this state, greater accountability for how more than $20 billion a year in K-12 public money gets spent -- and greater accountability for the inadequate progress of students in too many Illinois schools.

The politicians shy away from tough education reforms because they fear retribution from teachers unions, which in many locales have the power to make or break a candidate's bid for public office.

That backdrop makes the erupting war between the Democratic head of the Illinois Senate's Education Committee and the Chicago Teachers Union a conflict sure to reverberate to Springfield and beyond.

The union is angry with Meeks for some things he wrote in an Oct. 29 Tribune commentary, and for likening it to a street gang during his remarks at a Rainbow PUSH Coalition gathering. So angry that, Wednesday night, its House of Delegates overwhelmingly passed a resolution admonishing Meeks and halting CTU campaign donations to him until he apologizes.

We hope the CTU isn't holding its breath: Meeks told the Tribune editorial board late Wednesday that the threat of such financial pressures explains why "legislators won't speak out against the atrocities of the Chicago Teachers Union. . . . I'm finding where every dollar is they've given me and I'm giving it back. They can give it to some legislators they control."

Legislators they control. That phrase -- no names attached, but voting records speak volumes -- should echo uncomfortably in the minds of other lawmakers.

They can disagree with Meeks' characterization of the CTU as an obstructionist force that would rather protect all the teachers in its ranks than demand that they embrace much more rigorous evaluations. But legislators -- like teachers unions -- can't ignore a legislative committee chairman. The fact that Meeks is an African-American minister fighting for improvements that especially would help minority students gives him added cred.

Meeks vented his frustration in his Tribune commentary. In it he said:

" . . . the lack of preparedness of students leads to despair, disruption and ultimately violence. You would think that Chicago teachers, Mayor Richard Daley, churches and elected officials would care enough to work together to improve the system. But instead, the Chicago Teachers Union has figured out a way for teachers to not be evaluated on obvious criteria, such as how well they perform in the classroom. Nobody wants to be held accountable, but the blood of every child is on our hands. . . ."


Hot rhetoric, but not as menacing to some in the public education industry as what came next: Meeks wrote that he is "exploring the idea of vouchers and charter schools to help facilitate choice and enhance academic performance." Vouchers and charter schools threaten much of what teachers unions hold sacrosanct. The next thing you know, someone will want to blow up uniform compensation and pay teachers according to their performance.

If he so chooses, an Education Committee chair such as Meeks can make life a misery in Springfield for CTU officials -- and maybe for some legislators, too.

Meeks likely would see that as only fair. Lousy educations, he often says, make the remainder of life a misery for Chicago school students by the hundreds of thousands.

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune
---------------------------------------------
I think Mr. Meeks states the case pretty well. Let me add there are many fine educators out there that care about the kids they teach.

But their union is there to represent them and their interests. In doing so, it is pretty clear that there are cases where that representation is detrimental to the community and the kids.

That is the problem. Unions can go to far in what they seek to achieve. Be it issues of compensation and benefits, work rules, whatever. At some point enough people are alienated by such overreaching and change begins to happen.

For example, in Los Angeles with the Los Angeles Unified School District www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd28-2009oct28,0,1211739.story.
-----------------------------------------------------------

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd28-2009oct28,0,1211739.story
latimes.com

L.A. Unified to allow parents to initiate school reforms
Under the superintendent's school-control resolution, low-performing campuses can be forced to undergo major changes if a majority of parents demand it.

By Howard Blume

October 28, 2009

For the first time in Los Angeles, parents will be able to initiate major reforms at low-performing individual schools, rather than waiting for the school district to make changes, under a plan unveiled Tuesday.

This new parental power has emerged as part of a school-control resolution that allows for groups inside and outside the Los Angeles Unified School District to take over campuses. Supt. Ramon C. Cortines has included 12 underachieving schools and 18 new campuses in the process, but the parent option could add others to the list, especially in future years.

Under Cortines' plan, a majority of parents at a school could trigger reforms at a local campus. Parents whose students are matriculating from one school to another also could take part.

Parents, Cortines said, "have a right to be involved in the process."

But the superintendent's plan doesn't go far enough for school board member Yolie Flores Aguilar, the primary author of the school-control resolution, which was approved in August. She supported allowing more parents the ability to trigger reforms. The parents of a preschooler, for example, should be able to sign the petition for a middle school or high school, she said.

Her position aligns with that of Ben Austin, executive director of the Parent Revolution, a nonprofit closely affiliated with Green Dot Public Schools, which operates local charter schools. Austin has lobbied for the widest possible version of parent participation because, he said, improving a school can consume several years. The parent of a young child should have the right to set in motion changes to that child's future middle school, he said.

Leading up to the meeting, Austin, Flores Aguilar and their allies thought their position had prevailed. But Cortines refused to go that far.

In an interview last week, he said he didn't want the views of parents currently attending a school trumped by those of parents not enrolled, especially those who might be ill- informed. He stuck to that position Tuesday.

"Those same parents . . . won't even go and visit the middle school," Cortines said. "What they're doing is making judgments based on rumor or what they've heard."

Other complaints have come from the operators of charter schools, which are independently run but publicly funded. They contend that new restrictions in the reform resolution will limit their ability to manage academics and control costs, and they are threatening to pull out of the process entirely.

Cortines also opened the door to the possibility of allowing a majority of a school's staff to set off reforms. The rules for opening up additional schools to sweeping reform are still being developed and debated, so they're unlikely to result in more schools joining this year's list of 30 campuses, officials said. Cortines will recommend reform proposals for those schools in February.

[e-mail]

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

-----------------------------------------------------------


Quite a bit going on there.

I have also recently read articles in the Washington Post about reforms in D.C. and Boston. (can't find the link at the moment). I also have to give credit to our President who is fueling change in our educational system by demanding more accountability for results and advocating and promoting alternatives to our current system.

The bottom line is be reasonable in what you demand and be open to change.

[macrockett]

latimes.com/news/local/la-me-lausd5-2009nov05,0,2782314.story
latimes.com
Enrollment dips at L.A. Unified
The loss of students, apparently to charter schools in some cases, is bad news for the district's budget -- with funding based on attendance. It also has resulted in fewer teachers and larger classes.

By Howard Blume

7:34 PM PST, November 4, 2009

An apparent exodus of students to charter schools, combined with an overall enrollment decline, is disrupting Los Angeles-area schools and exacerbating an ongoing budget crisis.

Local independently run charter schools added more than 9,500 students this fall, a surge of almost 19% to more than 60,000. At the same time, enrollment is down more than 19,000 students, about 3%, at schools affiliated with the Los Angeles Unified School District.

Total district enrollment has fallen to 678,441, down from a peak of 747,009 in 2003.

The drop has long-term implications, because school districts receive funding based on student attendance. Some ramifications are immediate: Schools simply cannot afford to employ more teachers than their student enrollment will pay for. The result is that many schools had to release teachers and distribute students into other classes a month or more into the school year.

The latest disruption comes on the heels of the layoffs of about 2,000 teachers in July. For the moment, no additional layoffs are planned, officials said. Edged-out teachers fill vacancies elsewhere or work as substitutes on full salary until a position opens. But that doesn't make the sudden changes any less disruptive.

By district calculations, Mulholland Middle School in Van Nuys had about eight teachers too many, though clever schedule shuffling and budget management reduced the casualties to four teachers.

Each of the four had been directly responsible for about 175 students, and almost no one among the school's 1,750 students escaped the effects.

Physical education classes, which already had been packed with more than 50 students, are now accommodating more than 60. At least one class ballooned briefly to 70. Elective computer classes ended; that teacher was needed for math. The band teacher agreed to mix beginners in with his advanced class, frustrating for eighth-grader Richard Catalan.

He also misses his former math teacher. "And classes are larger," he said. "It's harder for teachers to keep track of how the lesson is progressing."

Principal John White postponed back-to-school night for a month and Assistant Principal Jacqueline Purdy led a crisis team that reworked the schedule, giving priority to placing qualified teachers in core academic classes.

Purdy paid a former school clerk out of her own pocket to help out. The clerk had been bumped from the campus during the recent budget cuts.

Teacher Ricardo Stewart agreed to handle sixth-, seventh- and eighth-grade history, tripling his preparation duties. Albert Estrada added on sixth-grade math and sixth-grade science to his eighth-grade science responsibilities. Match coach Gabriel Ortega added a math class to his full-time teacher-training duties while three other teachers gave up planning periods.

"It's hard getting used to new teachers, and new faces in the classrooms," said eighth-grader Emily Pinto. "It was a big adjustment."

Overall, the Mulholland faculty has shrunk by about 10 teachers and the enrollment by about 100 students, said Assistant Principal John Ford.

"The classes are kind of big," said Eva Vargas, Emily's mother. "And then they had to move all their schedules around. I'm worried that they're a little behind in math."

At the Santee Education Complex, a high school south of downtown, the faculty has shrunk from 140 to about 100 in a year, said Principal Richard J. Chavez. And ninth-grade enrollment was 200 fewer than expected.

Many factors affect enrollment, including birth rates, the availability of jobs and housing prices, but the growth of charter schools hasn't abated. Charters are publicly funded and operate free of many district regulations.

This fall, the Alliance for College-Ready Public Schools, a charter organization, opened five new schools, a connection not missed by Santee teacher Jose Lara.

"We think some of the students are going to charters," Lara said. "We've got to improve our educational program and prove to the community that we're doing a good job as well."

[e-mail]

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

[macrockett]

I had a hard time deciding where to put this story. Here or under the deficits thread. As I look at this thread as more local and the deficits as federal, it made sense to put it here. In addition, this article point clearly to...pensions.

Soon I will post the graph, which doesn't appear in the online addition, showing a clear beginning of the "hockey puck" effect of exponential growth.

If you don't have a clue of what I am talking about go to Dr. Albert Bartlett's series of videos on exponential math on youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY.

What i believe is very possible in the future, given the state of our state, is this: like the continued decrease in funding for our state institutions of higher education (i.e., the University of Illinois and others), the state will start to decrease the amount of funding going to primary education, meaning sources of funding coming to D204 from the state will decrease.

Along with this, someone will most likely introduce legislation to remove tax caps, or at least modify them so as to allow property taxes to go up to offset the reduced funding coming from the state. Why do this? So they don't have to raise income taxes to an even more onerous level than they are likely to do in the near future.

Regardless of what happens to solve the reckless policies of our legislators, we will pay in one form or another because I don't see anyone introducing legislation to radically alter the structural imbalances that exist in our state, like cutting unnecessary programs or restructuring pensions that create millionaires.

This isn't really about any of us who frequent these boards, it is about our kids and future generations who will eventually have to clean up the mess.

This is by no means an Illinois issue, just listen to the treasurer of the state of CA recently: www.californiapensionreform.com/?p=399
__________________________________________

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1108edit1nov08,0,5398389.story
chicagotribune.com
Just send your $7,000

November 8, 2009

Fellow citizens of Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn, legislators: Welcome to yet another public pension fiasco. Yet another festival of denial. Because in one obscure and maddening moment last week, every one of us slipped closer to burying our children and grandchildren -- unless they flee the state -- in still more debt by the billions.

The accompanying graphic shows how deep a hole Springfield is excavating for that burial of future generations. At the end of the current fiscal year, by this calculation, the state's unfunded pension liability plus its other pension debt will total some $95 billion. That's north of $7,000 for each of Illinois' 12.9 million residents -- including babies, retirees . . . and the state lawmakers who created this travesty. They awarded public pension benefits that battered Illinois employers and other taxpayers simply cannot afford.

This week, at the legislature's behest, a Pension Modernization Task Force likely will issue a report on the depth of the pension system's indebtedness. Among the legislature's instructions: that the task force "Analyze which pension benefits in Illinois should be modernized."

As in, which benefits should be changed for future hires. But the report won't do that.

Governor, you can ignore much -- but not all -- of this less than candid document.

-- -- --

We watched Tuesday as organized labor and its allies on the task force amputated an excellent list of modernization proposals compiled by Chicago attorney Donald J. McNeil. He chairs the task force (and has been Quinn's friend since they worked on Georgetown University's newspaper).

McNeil had prepped an even-handed draft for this most sensitive section of the report. In it he respectfully explained how differently representatives of labor and business viewed the relative costs of public versus private pensions. His draft urged that Quinn and public employees unions "conduct good-faith negotiations over a two-tier system" that would offer lower benefits to future employees -- a change Quinn has said he supports. If those talks don't yield savings, McNeil wrote, legislators should "enact some or all" of 10 possible pension changes for future state hires, including:

-- Raising workers' retirement ages.

-- Limiting annual cost-of-living adjustments to pension payments.

-- Curbing the effect of late-career salary bumps that fatten future pension payouts.

-- Hiking worker contributions to pensions.

-- Capping the amount of state-supported pension payments an individual can collect.

-- Studying whether Illinois should switch to a "defined contribution" retirement plan, comparable to the private-sector 401(k).

-- Eliminating such abuses as basing state pension payments not on a retiree's public salary, but on the higher salary he or she earned at a union or lobbying group.

In a swift vote, though, the task force's labor sympathizers nixed all of that. In their view, the pension crisis has one root cause: Lawmakers haven't fully funded the system. In other words, taxpayers haven't put up enough money to pay all the benefits. The sheer size of those benefits? No problem there.

This labor-backed version of task force "findings" on benefits dismisses a two-tier system as incapable of producing "significant savings" for some 25-30 years. Oh really?

Nope, looks like nothing needs fixing. Just send Springfield your $7,000.

-- -- --

Governor, legislators, when this report lands on your desks, skip the propaganda and turn to the appendix. There you'll find what you really need: a devastating, 19-page document, The Minority Report, by the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago. This group has been telling truth to power about Illinois' metastasizing pension debacle for years. Or read the report today at chicagotribune.com/pensions.

The Minority Report is a data-grounded call for gutsy leadership to modernize the pension system that Illinoisans can't sustain: "Just to keep the unfunded obligation from growing, the state should be funding pensions to the extent of about $8.3 billion (per year) out of operating revenues."

That approaches one-third of the current state budget. Can't be done.

Future benefits need to be cut, as they've been cut across the private sector. The Minority Report's ultimatum: "If Illinois does not seriously address these problems now, there may soon come a time when no combination of service cuts or tax increases will be sufficient to cover these mounting costs. Taxpayers ... will take their businesses, their investments and their jobs to another state -- one unburdened by a huge costly legacy from the past."

No more Blagojevichian borrowing schemes, no more delays in confronting the unions. And no tax hikes until this system is reformed. Per The Minority Report: "Organized labor cannot have it both ways -- no reforms and enhanced funding." Finally: Governor, legislators -- would somebody please ask Don McNeil for the "findings" that a majority of his committee hijacked?

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

The Minority Report of the Civic Committee on The Cmmercial Club of Chicago: www.civiccommittee.org/initiatives/StateFinance/Civic%20Committee%20Minority%20Report_November%202009.pdf

Civic Committee on the Commercial Club of Chicago website:
www.civiccommittee.org/

Pension Modernization Task Force website:
www.illinois.gov/gov/pensionreform/

Powerpoint presentation of differences between Public and Private Pensions: www.illinois.gov/publicincludes/statehome/gov/pensionreform/documents/TaskForcePresentation081209Final.pdf

[doctorwho]

Nov 8, 2009 10:20:40 GMT -6 macrockett said:

I had a hard time deciding where to put this story. Here or under the deficits thread. As I look at this thread as more local and the deficits as federal, it made sense to put it here. In addition, this article point clearly to...pensions.

Soon I will post the graph, which doesn't appear in the online addition, showing a clear beginning of the "hockey puck" effect of exponential growth.

If you don't have a clue of what I am talking about go to Dr. Albert Bartlett's series of videos on exponential math on youtube, www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY.

What i believe is very possible in the future, given the state of our state, is this: like the continued decrease in funding for our state institutions of higher education (i.e., the University of Illinois and others), the state will start to decrease the amount of funding going to primary education, meaning sources of funding coming to D204 from the state will decrease.

Along with this, someone will most likely introduce legislation to remove tax caps, or at least modify them so as to allow property taxes to go up to offset the reduced funding coming from the state. Why do this? So they don't have to raise income taxes to an even more onerous level than they are likely to do in the near future.

Regardless of what happens to solve the reckless policies of our legislators, we will pay in one form or another because I don't see anyone introducing legislation to radically alter the structural imbalances that exist in our state, like cutting unnecessary programs or restructuring pensions that create millionaires.

This isn't really about any of us who frequent these boards, it is about our kids and future generations who will eventually have to clean up the mess.

This is by no means an Illinois issue, just listen to the treasurer of the state of CA recently: www.californiapensionreform.com/?p=399
__________________________________________

www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/editorials/chi-1108edit1nov08,0,5398389.story
chicagotribune.com
Just send your $7,000

November 8, 2009

Fellow citizens of Illinois, Gov. Pat Quinn, legislators: Welcome to yet another public pension fiasco. Yet another festival of denial. Because in one obscure and maddening moment last week, every one of us slipped closer to burying our children and grandchildren -- unless they flee the state -- in still more debt by the billions.

The accompanying graphic shows how deep a hole Springfield is excavating for that burial of future generations. At the end of the current fiscal year, by this calculation, the state's unfunded pension liability plus its other pension debt will total some $95 billion. That's north of $7,000 for each of Illinois' 12.9 million residents -- including babies, retirees . . . and the state lawmakers who created this travesty. They awarded public pension benefits that battered Illinois employers and other taxpayers simply cannot afford.

This week, at the legislature's behest, a Pension Modernization Task Force likely will issue a report on the depth of the pension system's indebtedness. Among the legislature's instructions: that the task force "Analyze which pension benefits in Illinois should be modernized."

As in, which benefits should be changed for future hires. But the report won't do that.

Governor, you can ignore much -- but not all -- of this less than candid document.

-- -- --

We watched Tuesday as organized labor and its allies on the task force amputated an excellent list of modernization proposals compiled by Chicago attorney Donald J. McNeil. He chairs the task force (and has been Quinn's friend since they worked on Georgetown University's newspaper).

McNeil had prepped an even-handed draft for this most sensitive section of the report. In it he respectfully explained how differently representatives of labor and business viewed the relative costs of public versus private pensions. His draft urged that Quinn and public employees unions "conduct good-faith negotiations over a two-tier system" that would offer lower benefits to future employees -- a change Quinn has said he supports. If those talks don't yield savings, McNeil wrote, legislators should "enact some or all" of 10 possible pension changes for future state hires, including:

-- Raising workers' retirement ages.

-- Limiting annual cost-of-living adjustments to pension payments.

-- Curbing the effect of late-career salary bumps that fatten future pension payouts.

-- Hiking worker contributions to pensions.

-- Capping the amount of state-supported pension payments an individual can collect.

-- Studying whether Illinois should switch to a "defined contribution" retirement plan, comparable to the private-sector 401(k).

-- Eliminating such abuses as basing state pension payments not on a retiree's public salary, but on the higher salary he or she earned at a union or lobbying group.

In a swift vote, though, the task force's labor sympathizers nixed all of that. In their view, the pension crisis has one root cause: Lawmakers haven't fully funded the system. In other words, taxpayers haven't put up enough money to pay all the benefits. The sheer size of those benefits? No problem there.

This labor-backed version of task force "findings" on benefits dismisses a two-tier system as incapable of producing "significant savings" for some 25-30 years. Oh really?

Nope, looks like nothing needs fixing. Just send Springfield your $7,000.

-- -- --

Governor, legislators, when this report lands on your desks, skip the propaganda and turn to the appendix. There you'll find what you really need: a devastating, 19-page document, The Minority Report, by the Civic Committee of the Commercial Club of Chicago. This group has been telling truth to power about Illinois' metastasizing pension debacle for years. Or read the report today at chicagotribune.com/pensions.

The Minority Report is a data-grounded call for gutsy leadership to modernize the pension system that Illinoisans can't sustain: "Just to keep the unfunded obligation from growing, the state should be funding pensions to the extent of about $8.3 billion (per year) out of operating revenues."

That approaches one-third of the current state budget. Can't be done.

Future benefits need to be cut, as they've been cut across the private sector. The Minority Report's ultimatum: "If Illinois does not seriously address these problems now, there may soon come a time when no combination of service cuts or tax increases will be sufficient to cover these mounting costs. Taxpayers ... will take their businesses, their investments and their jobs to another state -- one unburdened by a huge costly legacy from the past."

No more Blagojevichian borrowing schemes, no more delays in confronting the unions. And no tax hikes until this system is reformed. Per The Minority Report: "Organized labor cannot have it both ways -- no reforms and enhanced funding." Finally: Governor, legislators -- would somebody please ask Don McNeil for the "findings" that a majority of his committee hijacked?

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

The Minority Report of the Civic Committee on The Cmmercial Club of Chicago: www.civiccommittee.org/initiatives/StateFinance/Civic%20Committee%20Minority%20Report_November%202009.pdf

Civic Committee on the Commercial Club of Chicago website:
www.civiccommittee.org/

Pension Modernization Task Force website:
www.illinois.gov/gov/pensionreform/

Powerpoint presentation of differences between Public and Private Pensions: www.illinois.gov/publicincludes/statehome/gov/pensionreform/documents/TaskForcePresentation081209Final.pdf

This isn't really about any of us who frequent these boards, it is about our kids and future generations who will eventually have to clean up the mess.

this is exactly the problem with pension here in Illinois - 6 figure types rising exponentially ( ironically enough at such a fast rate when the private sector has all but completely eliminated traditional pension plans) -

The health care bill is one more example of 'pay me later' that without the manufacturing prowess the US used to have they will NEVER be able to recover from. What this will do ( doomsday prediction I know but sorry - how I see it )- is we will end up with a nation of 2 classes ( the middle class goes away as hard work to maintain certain privileges - perceived and real - will no longer be worth it) the uber rich, and everyone else totally controlled by government intervention ( Marx would be proud).

OR - there will be a world war like none other...before the last hold on being a superpower is dismantled by current leadership.

I sure as hell hope I'm wrong as I may or may not be around when it gets that desparate ( thinking I will still be here)- but our kids are being left a mess of a world..being made worse daily by decisions that boggle the mind

[macrockett]

latimes.com/news/opinion/editorials/la-ed-lausd9-2009nov09,0,4616437.story
latimes.com

Editorial
Lessons for LAUSD
Today's trying times are reminders of past missteps. But an innovative reform plan, if done right, will help.

November 9, 2009

It's hard to imagine a more trying time for students and teachers at the Los Angeles Unified School District. Even more difficult is determining how much of the current woe was brought on by the district itself and how much reflects the vagaries of demographics, politics and the economy.

Consider the dismal budget year, the large-scale layoffs and the declining population of school-age students, then add to these troubles the students lost to charter schools and the resulting reduction in public school funding from the state. Enrollment in charters doesn't happen in smooth, predictable ways; it's not like an entire class from one school moves to another, with a resulting loss of one teacher position. Instead, it's a few from one school, a few from another, in scattered grades, and suddenly none of those schools can afford all of their teachers. And the students who move to charters aren't usually the most challenging ones to educate; those students tend to remain in the public schools.

That's how the district ended up with situations like the one at Mulholland Middle School, reported on last week by Times staff writer Howard Blume. The Van Nuys school has lost 100 students and 10 teachers. Its teachers and administrators took on heavy new workloads to reduce the number of layoffs. Students feel the pain too, in the form of more restricted course offerings and larger class sizes.

It's not the fault of the overburdened, dedicated teachers or their students -- or L.A. Unified -- that the state budget looks like Swiss cheese, that population shifts have lowered enrollment in most of California's urban districts or that regulations on charter schools create disproportionate hardships for public schools.

But there's also no denying L.A. Unified's heavy hand in creating its troubles, in ways both systemic and specific.

Last year, this page noted that charter school enrollment had grown to 7% of the district's student population and predicted the possibility of a de facto breakup of the district in which the growth of charters would eventually lead to a smaller, more manageable number of schools for the district to run. Since then, the proportion of students at charter schools has climbed again, to about 9%. And that figure will pale in comparison to the number five to 10 years from now if the district's plan to open perhaps 250 schools to outside operators is managed successfully.

The school board deserves credit for approving more charter schools in recent years, but the demand for them wouldn't have been nearly as high if the board and L.A. Unified management had been paying attention to the years-long discontent in the district. Parents complained about unsafe campuses, unqualified teachers and high dropout rates. Employers complained that graduates were so weak in math and reading skills that they couldn't qualify as delivery people or apprentices for skilled construction jobs. Under former Supt. Roy Romer, the district responded with some improvements, mainly in its elementary schools and with the construction of new campuses, but continued to stumble over its own byzantine bureaucracy, board politics and stifling union contract rules.

No wonder there was pent-up demand to leave L.A. Unified when charters began opening their doors in larger numbers. Many of the schools have substantial waiting lists; the percentage of students in charter schools would be far higher today if they had unlimited capacity.

L.A. Unified lost whatever momentum it had when the board hired retired Vice Adm. David L. Brewer in 2006 as its next superintendent, a selection intended to forestall Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa from having a say in the hiring by making the appointment before the new mayor-backed school board members took office. Brewer was not up to the leadership task of overcoming the district's monumental obstacles to reform and controlling the highly political board. The decision to buy out his contract two years later was necessary, but it further eroded public confidence in the district.

Then the board bypassed a crucial opportunity last year to raise money for school operations when it placed a $7-billion construction bond on the November ballot, which was approved by voters. The bloated size of the bond, more than twice what the board had initially considered adequate, had little to do with construction needs and everything to do with polls that showed the bond would win easily.

But this wasn't the time for taking the easy political route. The board should have halved the size of the bond, which can be used solely for construction, placing a parcel tax for an equal amount on the ballot to raise funds for textbooks, teachers and educational programs. Now the district is stuck with a bond that far exceeds its construction needs with fewer students to house, while it's short the money to retain adequate staff.

It's too late to correct many of the district's past missteps, but the board's newest strategy should alleviate some of the resulting disruption. By welcoming outside operators to some 250 schools, L.A. Unified will grow the number of charter schools and lose more students, but it also will gain greater control over how those losses take place. If the district stands firm on requiring charter operators to accept all students within each school's boundaries, rather than enrolling students through a lottery, there will be less impact on other district-operated schools and a fairer distribution of the more challenging students between charters and public schools. L.A. Unified would then become more of an administrator of independently run schools, a task it is better positioned to carry out than the direct education of 600,000 students. The new policy also should attract reform-oriented federal grants, the district's best chance of bringing in new money.

That doesn't relieve the district of the requirement to do its most basic job: teach well. In order to compete with charters, a teacher told Blume, "we've got to improve our educational program." Simple words, but the best ones.

Copyright © 2009, The Los Angeles Times

Another example of why the current system of electing school boards is flawed. At some point there should be some qualifications required, other than a pulse.

[macrockett]

www.chicagotribune.com/travel/chicago/chi-thu-mccormick-trade-show-nov12,0,4538483.story
chicagotribune.com

Medical group pulling trade show from Chicago after one visit
Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society cites high cost of electrical services for moving 2012 meeting to Las Vegas

By Kathy Bergen

Tribune reporter

November 12, 2009

Chicago is losing a premier medical trade show to Las Vegas because of the high cost of electrician services at McCormick Place, the show organizer said late Wednesday.

The Healthcare Information and Management Systems Society, which held its annual meeting at McCormick Place for the first time in April, is taking its 2012 show to the Sands Expo and Convention Center and the adjacent Venetian hotel.

The show rotates between several cities, and 2012 had been the next window for Chicago, which is trying to establish itself as a center for medical meetings.

Chicago was ruled out after show exhibitors and organizers were slammed with electrical services bills that were four to 10 times greater than what they paid at last year's show in Orlando, Fla., for identical services, said Steve Lieber, president and CEO of the Chicago-based association.

One small exhibitor saw its electrical-services bill climb from $4,000 in Orlando to $40,000 in Chicago, for the same booth, he said, adding that others saw costs rise by four to eight times what they paid in Orlando.

While hourly rates are not significantly higher here, the number of workers required and the number of hours billed for identical jobs are much greater, he said.

"The feedback from our exhibiting companies told us Chicago is not ready for us," Lieber said. "The companies that support our trade show are not in a position to be able to foot those kind of bills, especially in this economy."

The 2009 show in the West Building was a choice piece of business for the city, drawing 27,000 attendees and generating an estimated $55 million in spending locally. McCormick Place officials had touted its arrival as a sign that the city was on track to becoming the world's medical meetings headquarters.

The loss is a disappointment, acknowledged Juan Ochoa, chief executive of Metropolitan Pier and Exposition Authority, which owns and operates the convention center.

But the city has had some wins as well, he said. In September, the American Society of Clinical Oncology committed to holding its annual meeting of nearly 30,000 cancer specialists at McCormick Place for 10 years, starting in 2010.

And Ochoa said he hoped the city at some point could win back the medical show. The authority restructured its electrician labor pool in September, cutting it to 50 workers from 150, in an effort to retain only the most skilled, he said.

"Upcoming shows will experience the most customer-friendly and efficient electrical staff, which will cut their costs," he said.

The health care information association "is hoping that will start to make some difference," said Lieber, noting that Chicago's central location and health care industry concentration make it very attractive.

"But they couldn't give us any kind of assurance that we wouldn't see similar type of bills in 2012," he said.

A lesser issue for the group had been the cost of hotel rooms for the 2009 show, and the reluctance of hotels to budge from prices locked in prior to the deep recession, he said. But, ultimately, some hotels modified their rates for 2009, and the hotels got competitive when negotiating for the 2012 show, he added.

The group's decision to go to Las Vegas comes as Chicago is fighting to save the plastics industry trade show, a triennial show that has been a major staple at McCormick Place since 1971. The show's producer, SPI: The Plastics Industry Trade Association, also cited the high costs of exhibiting here as a factor in its decision to consider a move to Orlando in 2012.

A decision is expected by year-end.

The medical society's decision comes less than a month after Mayor Richard Daley told the Tribune editorial board that he will seek a major overhaul in the way Chicago markets itself as a destination for tourism and conventions.

[e-mail]

Copyright © 2009, Chicago Tribune

-------------------------------------------------------
Like I said above in another post, be reasonable.

[macrockett]

online.wsj.com/article/SB125860189986054965.html#printMode


NOVEMBER 19, 2009

D.C. Schools Chief Targets Tenure



By NEIL KING JR. and JOHN HECHINGER

WASHINGTON -- The Obama administration says it wants to remake public education around the principle that the best teachers should be promoted and rewarded, regardless of seniority.

And a brawl over just that idea is now playing out in the shadow of the White House.


The chancellor of Washington's school system, Michelle Rhee, is wrestling with one of the most expensive, worst performing school systems in the country. The dropout rate has hit 40%, and the cost per student is $14,000 a year. Buildings are crumbling and thousands of parents have abandoned the system, which serves about 45,000 students.

Ms. Rhee is trying to reduce what she believes to be a bloated school management and wrest more control over the district's affairs from the powerful local teachers' union. She has replaced principals, laid off teachers and closed underperforming schools.

She has also challenged what she feels is one of the biggest impediments to improvement: tenure, or strong job protections for teachers. The idea is to promise teachers much richer salaries, as well as performance bonuses, if they give up tenure. Good performers would be rewarded, poor performers gotten rid of.

In September, the 39-year-old Ms. Rhee, citing a looming budget gap, laid off nearly 400 school employees, including 266 teachers. The dismissals came weeks after Ms. Rhee finished hiring 934 new teachers over the summer. Ms. Rhee said she was initiating the layoffs based on "quality, not by seniority."

The Washington Teachers' Union filed a grievance and a lawsuit against the district over the layoffs, calling them "a blatant violation" of the union contract and a pretext for dismissing veterans without proper cause, which the district denies.

The feud has turned into a grudge match between Ms. Rhee and Randi Weingarten, head of the 1.4 million-member American Federation of Teachers, which has intervened directly in the local contract dispute. Ms. Rhee "has so poisoned the environment that I am not sure that we can ever get back to a good situation here," said Ms. Weingarten.

Ms. Rhee said the union fears the district's layoffs based on job performance will set a precedent for changes nationally. "If you ask any urban school superintendent, they would wish they could to exactly the same thing," she said.

The fight has become an issue for the Obama administration, which is preparing to award more than $4 billion in grants to states that are realigning their schools to reward teachers and principals for improved student performance. Education Secretary Arne Duncan has extolled other school districts, such as in New Haven, Conn., that have brokered deals recently with their unions, but he hasn't waded into the D.C. fight.

Still, Mr. Duncan said he wants to see the D.C. spat end soon. "We generally don't weigh in on local labor disputes, but this has gone on too long and they need to bring it to closure," he said in an interview. "There are a lot of good ideas on the table and this agreement could be a national model," he said.

Ms. Rhee told a group of corporate chief executives at a Wall Street Journal gathering in Washington this week that it made no sense for a struggling district to ignore teacher quality when initiating layoffs, an issue she called "one of the age-old sacred cows of unionism."

Under her plan, proposed in the summer of 2008 during negotiations over a new teacher contract, the district proposed significantly increasing teacher salaries and offering performance-based bonuses in return for teachers giving up some job security. She said the new pay scale would enable the highest-performing first-year teachers to make up to $78,000 a year, up from $45,000. Veterans could have earned as much as $131,000, roughly double what they had been paid. Those who wanted to keep their contractual job protections could opt out of the bonus plan.

"The union roundly rejected it -- went ballistic," she said, adding that the national teachers' unions viewed it as an assault on tenure.

Ms. Weingarten said the negotiations were close to completion, but the layoffs in September scuttled that effort.

Write to Neil King Jr. at [e-mail] and John Hechinger at [e-mail]
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A4

---------------------------------------------------------

This should be interesting to watch

[macrockett]

Round One goes against the Union
www.wtulocal6.org/custom_images/file/Lawsuit%20-%20Rhee%20Complaint.pdf


Court defends Rhee's layoffs
AGE WAS MOTIVE, UNION CLAIMED
Budget cut necessitated action eventually, judge says

By Bill Turque
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, November 25, 2009

A D.C. Superior Court judge on Tuesday upheld Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's decision to lay off 266 public school teachers and other educators to close a budget gap, flatly rejecting union arguments that she contrived financial problems to rid the system of older instructors.

Judge Judith Bartnoff ruled that the Washington Teachers' Union failed to prove any of its core contentions in challenging the Oct. 2 job cuts that triggered the most turbulent month of Rhee's 29-month tenure, which included student protests, union rallies and D.C. Council hearings. The union filed suit five days after the layoffs, branding them an illegal mass firing and calling for the teachers to be reinstated while the matter was turned over to an arbitrator.

But Bartnoff said that given the school system's fiscal condition after the council cut $21 million from the school budget July 31, a reversal of the layoffs would only force Rhee and Mayor Adrian M. Fenty (D) to make other cuts.

"The District asserts, and the plaintiff has not disputed, that in that event, other staff would be subject to a RIF [reduction in force] -- even further into the school year -- or programs that have been deemed essential would have to be cut," Bartnoff wrote in her 23-page opinion. "Such an action would not benefit DCPS, its teachers, students or staff, or the wider District of Columbia community."

D.C. Attorney General Peter Nickles called the ruling "a slam dunk."

"I'm very gratified," he said. "All of this shrill rhetoric about lawlessness and the RIF being a pretext was completely refuted in a court of law, where everyone got their chance to present witnesses and evidence."

George Parker, the union president, did not respond to a phone call seeking comment.

Union attorney Lee Jackson argued that Rhee, in essence, went on an illegal hiring spree over the spring and summer, bringing more than 900 new teachers on board knowing that she would need to make cuts later. The union claimed that Rhee sought to move out older teachers in favor of younger ones that she wanted to hire.

Bartnoff did not address that allegation but said the union failed to provide any substantive evidence that Rhee packed the system with more teachers than she could pay for. Lisa Ruda, Rhee's chief of staff, testified at a Nov. 5 court hearing that before the council reduced the agency's 2010 budget by $21 million, the school system had enough money to pay for all of its teachers.

Bartnoff did not, however, mention testimony at the Oct. 29 council hearing, when Noah Wepman, the school system's former chief financial officer, disclosed "spending pressures" in the agency's 2009 budget before the council's budget cut.

Bartnoff acknowledged the testimony of teachers union witnesses who said that the decisions to lay them off were unwise or motivated by "inappropriate considerations."

Nevertheless, she added, "some questionable RIF decisions do not establish that the RIF was a pretext for a mass discharge, given the undisputed evidence that the DCPS budget was sufficient to support the existing staff and the new teachers" prior to the council action on July 31.

Bartnoff said the union failed to meet the multipronged legal test for winning a preliminary injunction, the legal vehicle teachers hoped could be used to roll back the layoffs. The criteria include the likelihood of ultimately winning its case, which was doubtful in Bartnoff's estimation.

The union's collective bargaining agreement with the city does not provide for arbitration in cases of job cuts caused by budget difficulties. Under District law, employees who believe they've been unfairly laid off can file an appeal with the Office of Employee Appeals.

The judge also ruled that the layoffs, while personally painful to many teachers, did not meet the definition of "irreparable injury" required to win an injunction. Nor do the job cuts irreparably harm the teachers' bargaining unit, she said, despite accusations that Rhee is intent on breaking the union.

Some of the laid-off teachers said they were not surprised by the ruling, given Bartnoff's negative comments at the court hearing.

"I expected it," said Cynthia Hill, a former biology teacher at Ballou High School, who criticized the union's legal strategy of attempting to take the matter to arbitration. "Nobody can represent anybody that badly, I think.

"It's almost like they're in bed together anyway," she said, referring to Parker, Rhee and Bartnoff.

For more on education, please see washingtonpost.com/education

-------------------------------------------------------
Washington Post Editorial

Ms. Rhee's court vindication
A judge's ruling on layoffs puts some phony criticism to rest.

Wednesday, November 25, 2009

THE DECISION by a D.C. Superior Court judge to uphold D.C. Schools Chancellor Michelle A. Rhee's dismissal of 388 school employees is more than an important legal victory. It is a refutation of accusations that she manufactured a budget crisis as pretext to fire teachers she didn't want. The unequivocal findings should abash Ms. Rhee's critics and, we hope, help her reach needed accord with the teachers' union.

Judge Judith Bartnoff on Tuesday issued a 23-page decision rejecting a bid by the Washington Teachers' Union to reinstate 266 teachers and other staff members laid off on Oct. 2. The judge ruled that the union failed to prove any of its arguments. She also accepted -- without qualification -- Ms. Rhee's contention that budget cuts by the D.C. Council forced the reduction in force. The judge chronicled the events leading up to the layoffs and concluded there was "undisputed evidence" that the schools budget was sufficient to support existing staff members and newly hired teachers "until the Council reduced the budget by $21 million only two weeks before the new teachers were scheduled to report."

Equally significant was the judge's rejection of the union's claim that the dismissals are subject to arbitration under the city's collective bargaining agreement with the teachers' union. In essence, the judge told the union it could try to fight the layoffs through arbitration but that it would lose. Attorney General Peter J. Nickles correctly termed the decision a "slam-dunk" for the city.

It should not, however, be an occasion for gloating. The layoffs, while necessary, were disruptive -- to the affected schools as well as to the individuals who lost jobs. Now is the time for those who care about the schools to focus on the future. Foremost is for Ms. Rhee and union officials to resolve their differences over the teachers' contract. Negotiations have dragged on for more than two years. Mediation by an outside facilitator has yet to produce results. Union officials who are mulling whether to appeal Judge Bartnoff's ruling would do better to try to reach accommodations that serve their members at the bargaining table. Likewise, Ms. Rhee now has the opportunity to show her willingness to collaborate.

Finally, we hope there is some soul-searching on the part of D.C. Council members who wrongly assailed Ms. Rhee's integrity. They would serve the city better if they joined with her in trying to improve the schools.

[macrockett]

DECEMBER 9, 2009

Charter Schools Against the Odds
They're growing, despite union hostility.

Charter schools reached a new milestone this year. According to the Center for Education Reform, more than 5,000 charters are now operating in 39 states and the District of Columbia. Considering that the first charter didn't open until 1992, and that these innovative schools have faced outright hostility from teachers unions and the education bureaucracy, their growth is a rare gleam of hope for American public schools.

More than 1.5 million students now attend charters, an 11% increase from a year ago. That's only about 3% of all public school students, but the number has more than quadrupled in the past decade. And it would be much higher if the supply of charter schools was meeting the demand. As of June, an estimated 365,000 kids were on waiting lists.

The students who attend these schools, which are concentrated in urban areas, tend to be low-income minorities. Yet they regularly outperform their peer groups in traditional public schools often located blocks away. In their 18-year history, only 740 schools have lost their charters and been shut down for poor performance. Unlike traditional public schools, charter schools must be re-authorized every few years, which means they don't exist in perpetuity to fail multiple generations of youngsters.

Despite this record of accomplishment and accountability, the charter school movement continues to face all manner of obstacles. Eleven states ban charters, and even those that don't can make it very hard for them to succeed and multiply. Charters typically receive less money per pupil and, unlike other public schools, they must pay for the buildings they occupy. In many states, charter enrollment is capped and only school districts—which generally oppose charter schools—are allowed to approve charter applications.

The Obama Administration has said it will withhold discretionary federal education dollars from states that block the creation and growth of charter schools. Let's hope it follows through. We'd be hard pressed to name a more successful education reform in recent decades.
Printed in The Wall Street Journal, page A26

According to the Center for Educational Reform, Illinois rates a D for creating or allowing Charter Schools... charterschoolresearch.com/

[macrockett]

If you are employed in the private sector enjoy the most recent report by the BLS showing how well you stack up against public employees in terms of compensation. Takke a close look at Table A.

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf


I hate to rub salt in the wound, but here is a local site, if you haven't seen it yet. www.championnews.net/pension.php (extremely detailed info about pensions)

-----------------------------------------
After posting the above, I ran across the fact that Congress gave all federal employees a raise of 2% the day before the release of the BLS pdf.

Here was a piece in the Washington Post last week. Note Steny Hoyer's comment and the sentence I underlined.

---------------------------------------------------------

Federal employees earn 2% pay raise
Congressional appropriators agreed Tuesday night to give civilian federal employees a 2 percent pay increase -- which includes a locality pay increase President Obama didn't want.

Government workers will get a 1.5 percent nationwide increase in base pay and a 0.5 percent average increase in locality pay. The final agreement goes against the wishes of Obama, who called for a flat 2 percent jump and no locality increase.

Locality pay helps address the gaps between federal pay and private sector wages in high-cost areas of the country. The Federal Salary Council estimates the current private-public gap is about 26 percent, on average. Locality increases mean a federal worker in Cincinnati might get a smaller increase than a worker in Washington, D.C., because of local costs of living.

“I am pleased the final bill will provide for locality pay to reflect variable costs for federal employees working in various job markets,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement Tuesday night. “This provision is critical to bringing federal pay in line with the private sector and enabling the federal government to compete for high quality talent.” Hoyer's Congressional district is home to thousands of federal employees.

The pay increase will take effect once the House and Senate pass the FY'10 omnibus appropriations bill. Lawmakers hope to pass a host of key bills before year's end.

Though supporters won a locality increase, civilian federal workers will still earn a smaller pay increase than military service members. Hoyer assured federal workers, their unions and supportive lawmakers that the Obama administration will include pay parity in its FY '11 budget requests.

“Like their military counterparts, civilian federal employees have made significant contributions to help our country respond to the challenges we face both domestically and abroad, and I believe their pay adjustments should reflect that," Hoyer said.

“Military-civilian parity in pay raises has been a tenet of federal pay policy for most of the past 20 years, and reflects the continuing contributions of both groups of federal employees to the well-being and security of our nation” said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. NTEU will fight for pay parity in next year's budget, she said.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: Previous Federal Eye reports on federal Workplace Issues

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe | December 8, 2009; 8:19 PM ET
-----------------------------------------
good video on the subject, sorry for the commercial

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1358960787&play=1

[doctorwho]

Dec 15, 2009 14:39:29 GMT -6 macrockett said:

If you are employed in the private sector enjoy the most recent report by the BLS showing how well you stack up against public employees in terms of compensation. Takke a close look at Table A.

www.bls.gov/news.release/pdf/ecec.pdf


I hate to rub salt in the wound, but here is a local site, if you haven't seen it yet. www.championnews.net/pension.php (extremely detailed info about pensions)

-----------------------------------------
After posting the above, I ran across the fact that Congress gave all federal employees a raise of 2% the day before the release of the BLS pdf.

Here was a piece in the Washington Post last week. Note Steny Hoyer's comment and the sentence I underlined.

---------------------------------------------------------

Federal employees earn 2% pay raise
Congressional appropriators agreed Tuesday night to give civilian federal employees a 2 percent pay increase -- which includes a locality pay increase President Obama didn't want.

Government workers will get a 1.5 percent nationwide increase in base pay and a 0.5 percent average increase in locality pay. The final agreement goes against the wishes of Obama, who called for a flat 2 percent jump and no locality increase.

Locality pay helps address the gaps between federal pay and private sector wages in high-cost areas of the country. The Federal Salary Council estimates the current private-public gap is about 26 percent, on average. Locality increases mean a federal worker in Cincinnati might get a smaller increase than a worker in Washington, D.C., because of local costs of living.

“I am pleased the final bill will provide for locality pay to reflect variable costs for federal employees working in various job markets,” Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said in a statement Tuesday night. “This provision is critical to bringing federal pay in line with the private sector and enabling the federal government to compete for high quality talent.” Hoyer's Congressional district is home to thousands of federal employees.

The pay increase will take effect once the House and Senate pass the FY'10 omnibus appropriations bill. Lawmakers hope to pass a host of key bills before year's end.

Though supporters won a locality increase, civilian federal workers will still earn a smaller pay increase than military service members. Hoyer assured federal workers, their unions and supportive lawmakers that the Obama administration will include pay parity in its FY '11 budget requests.

“Like their military counterparts, civilian federal employees have made significant contributions to help our country respond to the challenges we face both domestically and abroad, and I believe their pay adjustments should reflect that," Hoyer said.

“Military-civilian parity in pay raises has been a tenet of federal pay policy for most of the past 20 years, and reflects the continuing contributions of both groups of federal employees to the well-being and security of our nation” said Colleen M. Kelley, president of the National Treasury Employees Union. NTEU will fight for pay parity in next year's budget, she said.

Leave your thoughts in the comments section below

RELATED: Previous Federal Eye reports on federal Workplace Issues

Follow The Federal Eye on Twitter | Submit your news tips here

By Ed O'Keefe | December 8, 2009; 8:19 PM ET

we all need federal jobs - where do we apply. For any rep to say this brings things into line with the private sector shows just out of touch most of our elected officials are.

[macrockett]

another video from cnbc on govt employees salaries... over 66000 make over 100k, and that is just base salary, not insurance and pension benefits.

www.cnbc.com/id/15840232?video=1359672339&play=1