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.
For large employers the State benefit retirement and health care is not significantly better and in many instances not as good.
Are they better than most small employers yes.
I am well aware of the benefits offered in the private sector.
by how you said this, i think you know that those large employers that have comparable benefits make up a small overall % of workers. most people work for small and mid-size employers and many large employers still dont have comparable benefits and many of them (even government) have been forced to subcontract their office jobs to avoid adding employees to their own payroll due to the additional expense of doing so.
i hear you but its not fair to ask taxpayers to take the hit. i would suggest some kind of bankruptcy process for unpaid debts and then change the negotiation process going forward. clearly politicians shouldnt make promises that are unreasonable and government shouldnt miss payments that are agreed to.
I understand where you say it's unfair to ask taxpayers to take the hit. Not paying into the pension funds for OVER 20yrs was a gimmick by the politicians to look good by not raising taxes, or more likely diverting the monies to someone politically connected, (donors, good buddies, whatever).
" negotiated in good faith with the Christie administration, took cuts, then when it came time for Christie to start to make up the shortfall he welshed. If taxpayers had taken a little hit when Whitman was governor, and maybe some state monies didn't go to some boondoggle, the pensions wouldn't be where they are now.
I've worked in the private sector both union and non-union jobs, it seems to me the #1 rule learned in business school it to tell your employees, "We're not making any money."
I've heard this from every single employer I've worked for, we'd be working 10hrs a day, loaded with work and they'd say, "We're not making any money." Then they were getting some new fancy phone system for the office and new office furniture, but expecting the workers in the back to drive a truck with bald tires.
Or the single proprietor I work for who cancelled everyone's health insurance because it got to expensive, while he was building a million dollar shore house and would brag that he didn't owe anyone any money.
But didn't a certain faction of taxpayers benefit from Christie #1's malfeasance? So why should they be off the hook? I may be wrong so feel free to correct me - I can't remember the beneficiaries of her plan.
But didn't a certain faction of taxpayers benefit from Christie #1's malfeasance? So why should they be off the hook? I may be wrong so feel free to correct me - I can't remember the beneficiaries of her plan.
the taxpayers are the only ones that see no benefit. the politician satisfies certain people to protect himself politically, the union got sweet benefits for their workers and the workers get sweet benefits. typically, the government eventually pays out any benefits promised.
i dont think the taxpayers see a benefit in reduced taxes by payments not being made. its more like the politicians can shift more money to their priorities if they dont have to put it in the pension pot.
the taxpayers are the only ones that see no benefit. the politician satisfies certain people to protect himself politically, the union got sweet benefits for their workers and the workers get sweet benefits. typically, the government eventually pays out any benefits promised.
i dont think the taxpayers see a benefit in reduced taxes by payments not being made. its more like the politicians can shift more money to their priorities if they dont have to put it in the pension pot.
No, the workers lost "sweet benefits" and have more money taken out of their checks, "typically the govt. eventually pays out any benefits" well this isn't typical because Christie isn't paying. Although he "admits when he flip-flops".
No, the workers lost "sweet benefits" and have more money taken out of their checks, "typically the govt. eventually pays out any benefits" well this isn't typical because Christie isn't paying. Although he "admits when he flip-flops".
are you saying that pension payments havent been made to beneficiaries because christie didnt fully contribute to the pension funds?
The COLA has been removed so for someone who retired expecting that there would be some inflation protection that was a change. For now at least. The issue is in court.
The COLA has been removed so for someone who retired expecting that there would be some inflation protection that was a change. For now at least. The issue is in court.
nice to be able to fight for benefits your feel entitled to that other people dont have.
"COLA Statistics
While state and federal pensions are typically adjusted for inflation, most private pensions are not. A 2000 Bureau of Labor Statistics survey reported that only nine percent of blue collar and service industry employees who are in traditional pension plans received an automatic cost of living adjustment in that year. Instead of an automatic adjustment, some union-negotiated plans provide a "13th check" at the end of the year. GE announced that it would be providing a 13th check for 500,000 retirees in December 2011. This will be GE’s ninth 13th check for retirees since 1980.
- See more at: http://www.pensionrights.org/publications/fact-sheet/can-your-pension-plan-afford-give-colas#sthash.VXumsXgi.dpuf"
No one said it was not nice to be able to fight for benefits.
I have a brother that works for a large corporation that had a pension change those employees went to court to fight that change also.
While following the many court cases with both public and private pensions I have come to realize that one factor that seems to offer more protection is whether the pension is a contributory or non-contributory plan.
A non-contributory plan is often considered an employee benefit while a contributory plan is considered a contracted right.
You need 2 parties to agree to changes in a contract. It cannot be done unilaterally. Employee benefits changes are done all the time
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.
