Call for Action: Uncle Sam's Social Security Beast Eyes Your Paycheck

By Fran Chandler

In President Clinton’s State of the Union address, you heard it from the horse's mouth: the message "Save Social Security" is now coming not just from the mouths of Republicans but straight from the president himself and his Democratic colleagues. Along with some of the more well reported solutions to the Social Security (SS) dilemma is a little publicized provision that does not affect most voters and is, therefore, likely to be supported by both sides of the aisle, which means it could easily be passed within a few months. This provision would force all employers into the SS retirement system, including those such as the California community college system, which has been exempted from Social Security because it set up its own alternative pension plan in lieu of Social Security.

I've heard mandatory SS will only be mandated for new teachers so why should I care?

While it is true a mandatory SS program will pull in only new hires (at least initially), neither plan proposed defines what a new hire is (and minor details such as this are never worked out until after legislation is passed). Will they define new hire as only including people who have never worked in the CC system previously, or will a new hire also be those who move from one district to another? Since SMC part-time faculty are, according to the District, laid off each term and rehired the next, will they all be considered new hires by Social Security as well? Part-time faculty who get hired to full-time teaching positions? SMC full-timers who teach part-time at another community college or at a CSU or UC campus? Full-time faculty who return to service after unpaid leaves of absence?

The cost to CC districts will be high (and it would be logical to expect districts to try to recover this cost by decreasing or eliminating pay raises, stipends, benefits, instructional services, full-time positions, etc.). The District’s match alone would cost approximately $3,187 for each new full-timer per year and about $233 per 3-unit class for a part-timer. Faculty members themselves would pay 14.2 percent of their salaries into both retirement plans (part-time faculty in the local retirement plan would pay a few percentage points less). Because the revenue stream to STRS would decrease, the strength of the system is threatened. Mandatory coverage will likely result in reduced benefits to retirees, and recent STRS gains and current plans to improve state retirement will have to be revamped.

But if I'm covered by both Social Security and STRS when I retire, won't I receive better benefits than with STRS alone?No, the proposed reforms call for a coordinated plan with benefits being reduced for those with more than one retirement plan. In fact, an STRS actuarial study shows the current STRS plan produces a much larger benefit than a coordinated Social Security-STRS plan would.

But isn't it true that it is better to retire with Medicare than to retire with only our locally negotiated PERS-Care medical benefits (regrettably, available to full-time retirees only)?

Yes, that is true in general; but remember that it takes 40 quarters of work to qualify for Social Security or Medicare. In addition, the FACCC-sponsored STRS legislation passed in 1998 directs STRS to study ways in which it can offer medical benefits for life to retirees. If such a plan proves to be financially feasible, the result would undoubtedly be a vast improvement over the much maligned Medicare system.

I'm only one person so what can I do about it?

When you write to politicians, you are really more than one person in their minds. Pollsters says that a personal letter from one concerned citizen actually represents the views of 10,000 people. Therefore, I challenge you to set aside your homework for 30 minutes and act in your own best interests.

In your own words, write a letter today telling the President and your federal representatives and senators who you are, what you do, why you believe mandatory coverage is a bad idea, and how it will impact you personally. Acknowledge the need to fix Social Security but suggest it be handled in a way that doesn't penalize those who happen to be in retirement systems that work (after all, where is the logic in "breaking" a retirement system that works to put what would be, in effect, no more than a Band-aid on the already broken Social Security retirement system?) State what you want the reader to do: commit to fighting mandatory coverage. End by telling the reader how much you will appreciate his/her positive action on this issue.

But I don't really have time; and with over 1,000 faculty at SMC, they don't really need my letter.

That’s where you're wrong. Too often people don't act, apathetically assuming others will carry the banner for them. Let the President of the United States and your representatives and senators hear it today from your mouth (or pen in this case). Their names and addresses are in the front pages of your telephone book, on the Faculty Association web page and on the FACCC web page . Please write today!