Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Because you haven't received any benefit from having a state government [which requires personnel], right? You, and the other big mouths on this thread, do nothing but pay taxes and get nothing in return. No infrastructure built or managed or maintained. No public safety. No recreational land. Nothing. Public employees are just parasites. Perfect example of the modern American mentality.
Reading comprehension much? Where is anyone here (myself included) complaining about tax dollars going to essential gov't services?
No, I have a problem with my tax dollars going to pay for overinflated salaries, 40 hour workweeks, guaranteed pensions, and job security. Stuff that private sector employees don't get to enjoy. And then on top of that, when we might finally get some transparency on exactly how much in pension these people are getting, some have the audacity to complain. OMG, a PUBLIC employee is answerable to the PUBLIC? You don't say?!
I'll take a sweet pension in exchange for it being posted online.
Comments like this show just how misinformed many people are about pension amounts. Not all who are retired government workers are receiving a "sweet pension," as you call it. In fact, some receive less than a grand a month, after working for a government system 15 years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
If government employees wanted privacy, they should have gone to work in the private sector.
This is just a silly comment. Those receiving pensions today didn't have any idea their personal information would become open information, in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by zombocom
Sorry man, but this state is buckling under the weight of these pensions, and furthermore, these pension programs have been mismanaged and deceptive - more transparency is a good move on their part.
I hate to say it but I have to agree with this comment. The public has been kept in the dark for decades about these deals made with government employees. Just to set the record straight (as Curmudgeon said), employees contribute a percentage to their own pension. Each agency has its own guidelines as to how much they will contribute to match it.
What irks me, though, is the lifetime benefit of healthcare. Many agencies pay for a retired employee's healthcare premium with no contribution from the employee. Some agencies give a certain $$ amount to contribute to monthly premium costs. Some give it in hours. (Sick leave hours left on the books, at the time of retirement, are converted into $$ amount to pay premiums. If someone doesn't have any sick leave hours to convert, they pay for their own healthcare. It's not the same for all agencies, though.)
I remember a story on the news about the city of Stockton, when it filed for bankruptcy. A reporter was interviewing a former city employee on the air. She was crying about the city taking away a portion of her healthcare benefit, forcing her to pay half of the premium. She was boo-hooing about how "they promised" to pay that benefit for life and now they were taking it away. I didn't have much sympathy for her because I feel that any retired employee should have to pay a portion of their healthcare costs. This should NOT be a defined benefit, imo. The reason? They didn't contribute to that benefit. They contributed to their pension but not healthcare.
As a former government worker, I'm not excited about anyone being able to see what I receive each month from my former employer. On the other hand, if anyone actually knew what I receive from the employer I spent 16 years with, they would probably send me charitable contributions. lol (j/k) In hindsight, I probably should have stayed with the private sector. I would have made more money in the long term. However, the job I did was gratifying. I helped a lot of people (taxpayers). I wouldn't have been able to do that, working in the private sector. For some, it's not about the money, it's about working for your community. Receiving a, "Thank you for helping me fix this" was a good feeling.
As for pension amounts being accessible to the public, I highly doubt many will bother to look up that information, unless the info is for some big-wig administrator. They are paid quite handsomely. I wouldn't mind receiving 15K a month plus free healthcare. I don't think anyone else would, either. I would like to see ALL retired employees, no matter what government agency they worked for, be required to pay for their own healthcare, or at least 50% of it. It's ludicrous that free healthcare (paid by taxpayers) is given to these former employees, without any contribution from them.
I would like to see ALL retired employees, no matter what government agency they worked for, be required to pay for their own healthcare, or at least 50% of it. It's ludicrous that free healthcare (paid by taxpayers) is given to these former employees, without any contribution from them.
I believe CalPERS information is probably accessible via Freedom of Information Act, right? Having had to respond to a few FOIA requests in my job, I'd guess that CalPERS just decided to get out in front and post all the data they had, rather than responding retroactively to requests. Responding to the requests themselves can be a huge PITA. Lawyers, paperwork, unnecessary requests (e.g. they might request info *related* to salaries when all they want to know are the *actual* salaries, greatly increasing workload of the staff involved, etc).
Transparency in government is probably a necessary evil. But people should remember to be careful what they wish for. There are many downsides too: In this case, loss of privacy for pensioners in this case. But also, the burden it places on public servants (I know a lot of people imagine there's a ton of slack in everyone's day and they should be able to pick up any additional work, but that's often not the case, particularly after years of cuts), ironically ultimately requiring more staff. And then, of course, there's just a ton of out-of-context information. Are these salaries high? Too high compared to the private sector? Etc.
When the IRS was getting scrutinized for instance, yeah, there was plenty of fishy stuff happen. But talking heads would also parade around facts about expenses that actually seemed pretty reasonable. The natural result is the system we have, where you quickly hit diminishing returns as people crack down on absolutely any whiff of spending that doesn't follow the letter of some strict policy. Where administrative staff spend all day scouring expense reports for things like the $4 you weren't supposed to spend at McDonald's because your hotel had continental breakfast (that's a real thing--they'll do things like check the hotel's website to see if breakfast was included). Or that you didn't include your $11 receipt from a BART fare, even though you originally took BART to save taxpayer money by not driving into the city and paying tolls, parking, etc (also a real thing). Or not allowing you to park in the $18 lot at the airport instead of the distant $10 lot for a one day flight, even though it saved you an hour (also a real thing--I just pay the extra $8 because I'm not getting up a half hour earlier for a 550am flight, for which I'm not receiving any overtime). I don't mean any of that as "woe is me" stuff. I love my job and we do generally get treated pretty well, but it's just honestly quite onerous, and I'd say that vast majority of the hassle we get on things like expenses is costing far more in staff time than they could ever save, even if I was trying to bend the rules.
Reading comprehension much? Where is anyone here (myself included) complaining about tax dollars going to essential gov't services?
No, I have a problem with my tax dollars going to pay for overinflated salaries, 40 hour workweeks, guaranteed pensions, and job security. Stuff that private sector employees don't get to enjoy. And then on top of that, when we might finally get some transparency on exactly how much in pension these people are getting, some have the audacity to complain. OMG, a PUBLIC employee is answerable to the PUBLIC? You don't say?!
Of course you are complaining. If you have a beef with the salaries and benefits take it up with your elected officials, not the worker-bees that comprise the vast majority of state employees you are sneering at. Do you think most state workers were on the prowl to see if they could hoodwink the public -- slip the taxpayers a fast one? The majority don't retire on fat pensions. They signed on for the contracts that were offered with the job -- and then they put in their hours and years. They made a choice to take the jobs based on what they were offered. As would have most of you whiners. But now the pensions should be snatched back, right? Suck it up. Correct course. Move on. If you paid too much for the car you bought 15 years ago you don't get to take it back to the dealership for a refund.
If you bothered to read my post, you'd see why I feel that way. You quoted it in your reply to me.
Obviously I read your post, you can likely assume that much, EyeRollerEmoticon Person.
You have yet to explain why you believe that it is imperative that government employees have to pay a share of their health insurance premiums in retirement. All you say (over and over) is that it is in fact what you "feel."
First, the cities, "districts" etc. that belong to CalPers and don't pay a dime in shouldn't get a dime back. That's what the taxpayers are paying for. I looked once at my water district--I pay $165 for water, they belong to CalPers, pay nothing in, and were making like $60,000-$80,000 a year. They could have funded their own retirement. And have we forgotten Bell?
Second, those of us that have paid in every month (I've paid in for 40 years, currently $273 a month) to fund our retirements, yet still hear the "free ride" and "I pay for your retirement." Well, if you're paying for it, give me back all the money I've paid every month.
When the database finally appears, you'll see a simple truth. The State employees have a standard, transparent retirement formula--years x age x average of last three years of salary. There's always fraud--wasn't some agency adding in overtime? My agency allowed none of that. But then there will be the districts, that operate under their own contracts, and that's where the anger should be directed. Some of their retirement plans are so totally fiscally irresponsible they should be shut down.
When they had that scandalous "look how big these pensions are" article a while back, and listed all the big pensions, there were three people from my agency on the entire list. All three had worked there for over 50 years, and all had been either Chief or Deputy Chief, which is the highest position in the agency. But there were lots of people on the list from the districts, working 10 or 15 years and pulling down huge pensions.
Good points, and connects with my point about how data without context. I bet we just see the annual salary. No classification information, no information about how much they contributed, no information about their job responsibilities, etc. I don't mind people seeing the information, I just think it's going to be pretty worthless.
By the way, I do agree with critics on a lot of points. No agency should be picking up the employee share of the pension costs. Those are relics of backdoor wage increases. These should be going away--around here, it's only police that get their pensions covered by the city, and they're trying really hard to end that. I do think retiree healthcare should go away, simply because those costs are unpredictable and escalating quickly. That said, to my knowledge, most retirees do pay a decent chunk of the cost out of pocket, and the insurance is quite basic.
Finally, I'd love to pensions go away at some point. There's nothing inherently evil about the people who receive them, and I'll defend their right to receive what they've paid into, but I'd love to see a system that was closer to pay as you go. Governments could offer a very nice 401k match (my last private sector company gave 8%--I'd almost prefer that to a pension), even one that cost on an annual basis something similar to what pensions cost. The benefit would be that it was off the books as soon as the contributions were made. No risk that liability will skyrocket in the future. No risk that politicians can overpromise on benefits with the hope that it doesn't catch up to them before they're out of office.
You also realize where those salaries you were getting paid that led to your contributions were coming from as well, right?
So cry me a damn river.
Yeah, I'll cry as soon as you tell me what government functions you wish to do without. To begin with consider streets, bridges, police, fire, parks and forestry, courts, prisons and jails. You can take it from there and add your personal favorites you don't want to pay for.
Two truths: There ain't no free lunch and haters gotta hate.
Pension won't be snatched back now but reform on new contracts is taking place. Government agencies, whether city, county or state, are changing the way future retirees will be paid. The past is water under the bridge and a lesson learned. I doubt any of these people who negotiated these contracts in the 80's and 90's, could see the problems they created. They should have but they didn't and now they're stuck with it.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I didn't have much sympathy for her because I feel that any retired employee should have to pay a portion of their healthcare costs. This should NOT be a defined benefit, imo. The reason? They didn't contribute to that benefit. They contributed to their pension but not healthcare. 
