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 believe that in the near future, public (government) retirees whose pensions are funded by the remaining workers, will become a more pronounced political target. Not saying it's right or wrong, just an observation. The public pension opinion trend will grow increasingly negative as more and more low-earning, high-debt millennials realize they're on the hook (for decades) to pay for the pensions of their baby boomer aunts and uncles.
One partial solution would be how the US handles bankrupt private pensions -- a hard cap on total benefits somewhere near the US median salary (for example $50,000 per year), and an excise tax on all public pensions to support the program.
I can only speak for where I worked, and in two different agencies management piggybacked off of the collective bargaining contracts (including pension formulas) of union employees, so they definitely benefited from the union even though they did not belong to it.
One time way back in the Eighties I had to create a chart showing the vacation time, sick time, overtime rules, etc., of all the different "pay plans", union and non. There were at the time about five different unions in the department, and then in the non-represented group there were clerical, engineering, and management. They were all over the place. Different rules, different holidays, different number of hours in a work week, different sick time allowances, different vacation allowances. And that was just the ones in my department. It didn't include any of the people in the agency who were in the RR union or the police.
I am just reading California's generous pensions system for Teachers. When people in the private sector struggle so much and have zero security in retirement why is this type of golden parachute offered to government employees in a time when pension funds are self destructing? Now, my guess is that they will raise taxes which people in the private sector will pay so that these government employees can continue to get their golden parachutes.
Heck, the CA teachers pension is even inflation protected... private people are struggling with keeping up with inflation with ultra low interest rates on their savings and an unstable stock market going forward yet all these protections are free to government employees in retirement.
It's a bit too late for me but probably I should've got a government job 10 years ago, salaries in the private sector have declined and now the private sector does not pay much more than the government sector.
I know that any overburdened taxpayer who dares to speak out against the public pension cancer that is threatening cities and states financially will be discredited by those who are collecting their taxpayer supported public pensions. But you are not alone. And you are not "pension envy". You are just one of many fed-up, frustrated, overburdened taxpayers. Here are more proof of the public pension crisis.
I believe that in the near future, public (government) retirees whose pensions are funded by the remaining workers, will become a more pronounced political target. Not saying it's right or wrong, just an observation. The public pension opinion trend will grow increasingly negative as more and more low-earning, high-debt millennials realize they're on the hook (for decades) to pay for the pensions of their baby boomer aunts and uncles.
One partial solution would be how the US handles bankrupt private pensions -- a hard cap on total benefitssomewhere near the US median salary (for example $50,000 per year), and an excise tax on all public pensions to support the program.
Does that mean I'll get a pension raise? My "gold plated" teacher pension is $39K/year. That's before $1200/month in deductions for federal, state and local taxes and health insurance.
I will be able to collect a (partial) pension from CA teacher fund and I still think it's ridiculous that employees get a guaranteed defined benefit when the rest of America has to rely on an unstable stock market and low interest rates with their 401k's. Pensions were never designed for people to collect 30+ years like many will do because of longer lifespans. It's an unsustainable system that will have to be changed at some point.
Please tell us what public employees collect a "guaranteed 75% of their best three padded years along with health coverage for life" and also tell us how many years they have to work and much they have to contribute in order to collect.
You remind me of those individuals who are always outraged over false information - like members of Congress receive a 100% pension for the rest of their lives after serving only one term, which is not only patently false but is nowhere near the truth.
I can understand and even agree with being outraged over misuse, abuse, and theft of public funds but you also need to do some research and learn what's true and what's not.
Until you do your part, you should remain silent and not discredit yourself by spreading lies and misinformation.
That's your civic responsibility as a good citizen.
My sister in law who is 75 now worked for NY State as a nurse in the Harlem Valley area. She worked from her twenties and was certified as an RN through the State. She worked till 70 and all her coworkers gave her overtime in her last three years and she still brags about it. She never spoke about contributions so I assume there were none. 3/4 pay with full health after 20 years has been the norm as far as I know. Even UAW workers got that in the 70's until factories moved out.
I'm not sure what you mean by doing my part but I worked 35 years at one job till I went on my own and they did pay my 10k deductible insurance premiums. After I was laid off I had nothing but what I saved on my own.
What I said may be somewhat rare today but not a lie.
One time way back in the Eighties I had to create a chart showing the vacation time, sick time, overtime rules, etc., of all the different "pay plans", union and non. There were at the time about five different unions in the department, and then in the non-represented group there were clerical, engineering, and management. They were all over the place. Different rules, different holidays, different number of hours in a work week, different sick time allowances, different vacation allowances. And that was just the ones in my department. It didn't include any of the people in the agency who were in the RR union or the police.
What's the point of your post?
That there was different pay and benefits for different subsets of employees?
My sister in law who is 75 now worked for NY State as a nurse in the Harlem Valley area. She worked from her twenties and was certified as an RN through the State. She worked till 70 and all her coworkers gave her overtime in her last three years and she still brags about it. She never spoke about contributions so I assume there were none. 3/4 pay with full health after 20 years has been the norm as far as I know. Even UAW workers got that in the 70's until factories moved out.
I'm not sure what you mean by doing my part but I worked 35 years at one job till I went on my own and they did pay my 10k deductible insurance premiums. After I was laid off I had nothing but what I saved on my own.
What I said may be somewhat rare today but not a lie.
First, you stated your sister-in-law worked for the state of New York from her 20s until she was 70. So, she worked for at 41 years (which is a very long time for anyone working anywhere) until she retired.
I don't see anything outrageous or controversial about an employee putting in 40+ years at any job and retiring with a 75% pension unless you're one of those people who believes that everyone should work until they drop dead, regardless of how old they are or how healthy they are.
Second, you stated two other things, (a) "She never spoke about contributions so I assume there were none" and (b) "3/4 pay with full health after 20 years has been the norm as far as I know".
I give you no credence on either statements because the first is an assumption (by your own admission) that is not based on anything and the second is based on "what you know".
So, what do you know?
Based on your statements, it's that you're obviously envious of your sister-in-law's retirement situation.
That there was different pay and benefits for different subsets of employees?
Okay.
In response to the statement that in some other public agencies the non-represented employees' benefits were based on the union employees' benefits within the same agencies, I demonstrated how that could not happen as easily in an agency with multiple unions with widely different collective bargaining agreements. Which one do you choose as a model for your non-represented employees?
I will be able to collect a (partial) pension from CA teacher fund and I still think it's ridiculous that employees get a guaranteed defined benefit when the rest of America has to rely on an unstable stock market and low interest rates with their 401k's. Pensions were never designed for people to collect 30+ years like many will do because of longer lifespans. It's an unsustainable system that will have to be changed at some point.
Hmm.
Were you feeling this way when the stock market was booming and the interest rates were high?
The answer is probably no.
I remember back in the 1990s and the mid 2000s when the stock market was just going up, up, up and all of the people who were laughing at public sector employees who were "working for peanuts and missing out on making real money".
Now they're weeping and gnashing their teeth and bellyaching about how public sector employees have it too good.
Yeah, they can bite me.
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.
