I have seen a variant of this “emeritus” deal elsewhere — in Arizona. It has outlived its usefulness. Times change.
Here’s how it went. It was not negotiated via unions. AZ’s teacher’s “union” presence is negligible, being a right to work state. Instead, 10-12 years ago, with the economy booming, with massive influx of population into AZ, there was a teacher shortage.
It created a vortex of need at both ends of the spectrum. The district in my community had long seen the benefit of phasing out older teachers at the high end of the salary schedule. The district figured they were saving money by raising high-end teachers’ salaries for their last year, which would have the effect of increasing their retirement income, which employers and employees had been “seeding” 50-50 throughout each teacher’s career . This incentive was meant to encourage high salaries out the door, to be replaced by starting-level teachers, thus saving the district money in the long run. So this policy was already in effect when the teacher shortage hit 10-12 years ago.
Then, with the massive influx of population, AZ’s teacher shortage was remedied by trying to KEEP teachers in place. So, for teachers our local district found to be strong, energetic leaders, they made a special provision to KEEP THEM ON STAFF, as backbone cadre to provide stability and continuity for the district in the face of all the rookies coming on board.
A provision existed in the State Retirement System whereby a retiree could not go back to work in the same job for six months after starting to draw retirement. A loophole was found and a consortium was formed that would “hire” retired teachers and “farm them out” to districts, so that they could continue working in the same job they retired from. Teacher shortages create schemes like this. The districts rehired the teachers at a 1/3 reduced salary and did not have to pay their retirement or their medical anymore, so they were able to keep selected veteran cadre on board w/o paying their former high-end salaries. It was a win-win situation. And the kicker is that it was a district prerogative, not a teacher prerogative. The district could tell teachers it didn’t want back, “No, we are not offering YOU these incentives”.
But now there is NOT a teacher shortage anymore, so that scheme has been COMPLETELY PHASED OUT.
The point is, that is the difference between union-negotiated benefit schemes and ones that came into being out of mutual necessity and benefit. The corollary to that point is that, left alone, the market works these issues out. Not so when unions are involved. Unions create disasters, not solutions.
Business and industry do this phase out as well...different means and ways but the end result remains the same...of getting High Paid people off the payrolls.
I know of a company who relocated a Gen. Mgr. a 2 hour drive from his home to work. The idea was he would get tired of the travel and retire earlier....this was implimented two or three years before his retirement and pension were to go into affect.