RH Jones: Effects of 1% COLA take-away cut

From RH Jones, April 21, 2010

To all:

First, I believe that any take-away of our promised COLA and the past HC/Rx cut is unconstitutional. From reading the ORTA Spring Quarterly, 2010, as every ORTA member knows that those who are in positions of authority there have gone along with the HPA (HC Pension Advocates). Also, the OEA, OEA-R, OFT, STRS board, and the STRS executive staff, are allowing this thoughtless cut to go unchallenged. Especially, in relation to the unions mentioned above, I would like to quote form Adele Mathias and Elaine Spondike affiliated with the SERS: “If you do not defend your rights you have no rights.”

In relation to the inequality of the 1% COLA takeaway: I conclude that the STRS retired members can be divided into thirds according to their needs. The first 1/3^rd are the Senior Retirees, second 1/3^rd Mid-level, and the third 1/3^rd are Recent Retirees. Those most in need of the full 3% COLA, that is calculated on their retiree’s individual base, is the Senior Retirees -- they have the smallest bases and the largest HC/Rx expenses due to their advanced ages. The Mid-level retirees are in the gray zone, some are still employable, and some are not, but can afford cuts more than the seniors. Lastly, the Recent Retirees are most able to take the 1% cut without as much hardship -- for they retired at more than twice than either the first 1/3^rd or the 2^nd.

Of course long-term solvency is the goal of all STRS members. But to put blame onto Senior Retirees is especially unreasonable, as well as blaming past STRS retired members who negotiated Ad hoc, COLA and the HC/Rx enhancements in good faith. Without these enhancements, many retired educators would qualify for other government poverty enhancements.

Employers have escaped a raise in their contributions for over 25-years. They are responsible for their share of providing a properly funded retirement. Retired members have therefore, supplemented public school districts and state funding with our HC/Rx cuts and now these political groups want us to supplement the STRS with, once again, another cut; this time in the form of 1% COLA of our flat COLA. Employer failure and avoidance of their responsibility to honor promises made to career retired professional educators should be, and probably is, constitutionally compulsory at the national level.

Retirees who were employed in jobs within the OEA have been compensated with a court settlement from OEA. Will the same outcome come about if those mentioned above are held responsible for retiree cuts after having to go to court, I wonder? OEA in particular cannot afford another court settlement. It is best for them, and the others, just to provide the necessary funding for the STRS solvency and leave retired members unadulterated.

And, again I say the 1/3^rd most senior have been and well be most affected. This should not be the case because they cannot possibly live for too much longer, especially male educators who have a shorter life expectancy than their female counterparts. For the both, where is compassion?

RHJones, a Senior Retired Member of OH STRS