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.
In the end everyone votes their own interest. The newer workers at risk of layoff were a minority... Those who voted against did so because they knew they would maintain their own jobs, benefits and salary level and couldn't give a flip about the more junior employees.
This is not true. As a tenured faculty member at UConn and an AAUP member, I could have voted to reject the deal in almost complete certainty that I can't be laid off.
Care to guess how I voted?
I think a lot of people voted "no" because the terms of the agreement- especially the healthcare changes- were vague, and because they reject the notion that this represents "shared sacrifice". State employees are subject to the same tax increases as all citizens. They are being asked to make an additional sacrifice, on top of past years givebacks. Meanwhile the state is going to spend close to a billion dollars on the UConn health center, which is clearly a losing proposition, and half a billion on a busway.
7wishes, The American is not getting mistreated. Most employers offer wellness incentives to reduce the employee portion. That's similar to the preventive discount the state babies were whining about. Its about caring about costs one causes, not simply costs one pays. Something unionites do not know the meaning of. Assuming DM follows through, consider them schooled now.
PS, the 28% is PRE tax, post tax for most, its around 20%. (Kaiser study said yesterday while 28% is about the norm, its actually 19% of single portion, and 30% of family. Corps should not even be covering family, IMO, w/o offering singles other additional benefits to insure benefit cost per position/pay/job level does not vary).
This is not true. As a tenured faculty member at UConn and an AAUP member, I could have voted to reject the deal in almost complete certainty that I can't be laid off.
Care to guess how I voted?
I think a lot of people voted "no" because the terms of the agreement- especially the healthcare changes- were vague, and because they reject the notion that this represents "shared sacrifice". State employees are subject to the same tax increases as all citizens. They are being asked to make an additional sacrifice, on top of past years givebacks. Meanwhile the state is going to spend close to a billion dollars on the UConn health center, which is clearly a losing proposition, and half a billion on a busway.
I am not a union basher. However, state agencies have become bloated with middle management... Not to mention we continued this pension insanity for years past its advisability. (My 401K and Roth IRA do very nicely... Why can't government employees have those? We're paying for three police departments in town. The one that works now, the one that retired 20 years ago and the one that retired before them...)
Oh give me a break. I am as liberal a Democrat as they come, but I recognize the financial straights the state is in.
We pension obligations (and other obligations) that are completely unfunded. Where do YOU expect the money to come from to pay these obligations?
I thought you were referring to the projected 3 billion dollar biennial budget deficit, which I would bet never even materializes. We have, what, a 600 million dollar unexpected surplus this year?
As for your question, I don't know.... taxes? Bonds? From what I've read, the state will need to put a billion dollars a year into the pension fund. They are not completely unfunded, BTW.
What I do know is that promises were made, and those promises should be kept. Sure, go ahead and offer defined contribution plans to future hires, but to retroactively abrogate a contractual benefit is unacceptable
FYI, I have a defined contribution pension plan, as do most of my colleagues.
Oh give me a break. I am as liberal a Democrat as they come, but I recognize the financial straights the state is in.
We pension obligations (and other obligations) that are completely unfunded. Where do YOU expect the money to come from to pay these obligations?
There I do agree with you, something has to give not just here but other states as well, as people live longer etc etc. Just a quick example, lets say a police officer started his or her career at 22, they can retire I'm not sure if it's 20 years or 25 years of service, at a nice pension, that is state funded. Let's say that person lives to be 82, that's 40 years of getting a state funded tax payer pension for 20 years of work or so? I guess I could have gone that route too if I so desired but then people wonder why the states are in some financial distress because of the ongoing legacy pensions they pay that just get bigger and bigger as more people retire and people live longer and longer.
What I do know is that promises were made, and those promises should be kept. Sure, go ahead and offer defined contribution plans to future hires, but to retroactively abrogate a contractual benefit is unacceptable
FYI, I have a defined contribution pension plan, as do most of my colleagues.
Yup, I agree. We can't abdicate our responsibility and the promises made have to be kept.
We also have to stop digging this hole and give state employees a defined contribution plan -- the type that has worked very well in the private sector. With employer matching contributions you almost double your investment immediately.
The long term spiraling debt, in the long run, is a much bigger concern than the deficit.
What I do know is that promises were made, and those promises should be kept. Sure, go ahead and offer defined contribution plans to future hires, but to retroactively abrogate a contractual benefit is unacceptable
I agree with you that it isn't "fair", but the harsh reality is that sometimes life isn't fair. The powers that be can try to confront the issue realistically, or they can just stick their fingers in their ears and say La, la, la, until the whole thing just crashes and burns. You have to seriously consider the bad things that ultimately happened to people employed by GM and Chrysler when they respectively crashed and burned. And you have to consider the bad things that are about to happen to brothers/sisters in places like Wisconsin.
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.
