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.
If government workers were subject to the same lean/productive fluctuations of the economy like private citizens then they would probably be more receptive to benefit cuts when the governments that pay their salaries are basically bankrupt.
But unlike the private sector, your salary doesn't go up during good times and there are no bonuses. It is the trade-off of public employment and the price of stability.
Quote:
Any government employee that has a beef with that is completely free to join the private work force. The tax payers owe you nothing.
Of course not. But as a tax payer, I don't want my kid's teacher to make $12 an hour and to have no retirement. Good, important work deserves fair pay. But in any case, this argument is a red herring, and one only needs to look at government budgets to see the relatively small impact union busting will have.
And to look at the bigger picture - As a tax payer, I want the best and the brightest working for the government, not selling mattresses. If the government can't offer stability and fair pay, a downward spiral of employee quality is inevitable.
jealously of public workers during lean times is nothing new. what private sector folks always forget is that when they were making money hand over fist during the boom years, the public sector workers were making the same thing they are now. the stability is what makes the career path attractive.
there is big difference in public workers, and public unions. nearly all governments are having budget issues due to the recession, but that is a different topic than unions. the wisconsin issue is the impediments to cost-cutting in certain state governments around the country due to unions.
here in NC, for example, pay was frozen for tons of state and local workers and you barely heard a peep about it. In new jersey they froze the pay of teachers and the unions pitched a fit, making it national news, calling it a "GOP attack on the middle class", blah blah blah.. just totally unwilling to accept the reality of their budget, which by the way, is far worse than that of NC.
Any government employee that has a beef with that is completely free to join the private work force.
A lot of us are getting ready to take you up on that offer. You think government is expensive now, just wait until you everyone who has a sense of duty is gone.
Public employees perform a job just like the rest of us., and should be fairly compensated. However, some public employees receive benefits well above the general public, and those benefits are no longer sustainable. They were gained through "collective barganing" and crooked politicians looking for the vote. But we are finding out now they never should have been given out as the well is running dry.
NJ for example is broke, and the unions just don't get it.
Most retirees collect what they contributed to the pension system during the first 3 years of their retirement, after that, the money needs to come from somewhere. Most businesses realized a long time ago that legacy defined pension plans simply were not sustainable- what makes us think the Government can continue to afford a legacy defined pension plan? The public pension system needs to be changed to a 401K for "ALL" new employees.The longer states delay the transition to a 401k pension system, the more debt they will continue to incur. I see no reason why governments should fund pensions.
Public employee health benefits are extremely costly as they have $10 co-pays for doctors and prescriptions. A good part on NJ public workers just started paying 1-1/2% of their salary towards their health benefits, but all are not paying yet as their current contracts are not up for renewal yet. NJ public retirees do not pay for health benefits. States need to require all employees to include police, fire, and retirees pay a fair share for their health benefits, and paying for 30% of their health benefits is more in line with what the public sector and federal employees pay.
Public employees usually enjoy more holidays off than the general public. Heck, here in NJ they get election day off.
Keep the unions, they have done a lot of good over the years, but limit collective bargaining- that's the greed that helped to get states in this mess. The majority of the federal jobs do not have collective bargaining- They offer a job with specific duties, a specific salary range, specific benefits, and annual raises based on economic conditions; The President imposed a 2 year wage freeze for 2011-2012, and there are talks for a 5 year wage freeze. Why do states and individual town employees really need to have collective barganing for wages and benefits?
I have nothing against public employees, but the benefits gained through collective barganing in most cases are unsustainable and really hurting the taxpayers.
I see no reason why governments should fund pensions.
Public employee health benefits are extremely costly as they have $10 co-pays for doctors and prescriptions. A good part on NJ public workers just started paying 1-1/2% of their salary towards their health benefits, but all are not paying yet as their current contracts are not up for renewal yet. NJ public retirees do not pay for health benefits. States need to require all employees to include police, fire, and retirees pay a fair share for their health benefits, and paying for 30% of their health benefits is more in line with what the public sector and federal employees pay.
Public employees usually enjoy more holidays off than the general public. Heck, here in NJ they get election day off.
Keep the unions, they have done a lot of good over the years, but limit collective bargaining- that's the greed that helped to get states in this mess. The majority of the federal jobs do not have collective bargaining- They offer a job with specific duties, a specific salary range, specific benefits, and annual raises based on economic conditions; The President imposed a 2 year wage freeze for 2011-2012, and there are talks for a 5 year wage freeze. Why do states and individual town employees really need to have collective barganing for wages and benefits?
I have nothing against public employees, but the benefits gained through collective barganing in most cases are unsustainable and really hurting the taxpayers.
But the politicians have NO PROBLEMS with their costly salaries and LIFETIME benefits....and 60%-75% of salary for retirement after only serving ONE TERM??
We really need to hold politicians accountable, as they are no different than any other public employee.
Unfortunately, they have a history of making promises they cannot keep, and that's what gets them elected. Voters really need to wake up; What's the old saying: if it looks to good to be true, it usually is.
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc515
Public employees perform a job just like the rest of us., and should be fairly compensated. However, some public employees receive benefits well above the general public, and those benefits are no longer sustainable. They were gained through "collective barganing" and crooked politicians looking for the vote. But we are finding out now they never should have been given out as the well is running dry.
NJ for example is broke, and the unions just don't get it.
Most retirees collect what they contributed to the pension system during the first 3 years of their retirement, after that, the money needs to come from somewhere. Most businesses realized a long time ago that legacy defined pension plans simply were not sustainable- what makes us think the Government can continue to afford a legacy defined pension plan? The public pension system needs to be changed to a 401K for "ALL" new employees.The longer states delay the transition to a 401k pension system, the more debt they will continue to incur. I see no reason why governments should fund pensions.
Public employee health benefits are extremely costly as they have $10 co-pays for doctors and prescriptions. A good part on NJ public workers just started paying 1-1/2% of their salary towards their health benefits, but all are not paying yet as their current contracts are not up for renewal yet. NJ public retirees do not pay for health benefits. States need to require all employees to include police, fire, and retirees pay a fair share for their health benefits, and paying for 30% of their health benefits is more in line with what the public sector and federal employees pay.
Public employees usually enjoy more holidays off than the general public. Heck, here in NJ they get election day off.
Keep the unions, they have done a lot of good over the years, but limit collective bargaining- that's the greed that helped to get states in this mess. The majority of the federal jobs do not have collective bargaining- They offer a job with specific duties, a specific salary range, specific benefits, and annual raises based on economic conditions; The President imposed a 2 year wage freeze for 2011-2012, and there are talks for a 5 year wage freeze. Why do states and individual town employees really need to have collective barganing for wages and benefits?
I have nothing against public employees, but the benefits gained through collective barganing in most cases are unsustainable and really hurting the taxpayers.
Most of the public employees & teachers were paying more than 1.5% before that law. I watched Christie, online, on the NJPTV website. He lied through his teeth about many things, using extreme examples & stating them as if they were statewide. He's a lawyer. Do you see him renouncing his pension & free medical benefits for life after one term? That's right, no. But he wants to take it away from people who've worked a minimum of 25 years.
The pension fund is underfunded because of Christie Whitman's income tax cut, that primarily benefitted the wealthy & created a gap in the budget. She changed the law to use the states share of the pension money to plug the gap. McGreevey continued the practice while raising cigarette taxes to help plug the gap. He thought he was safe since it was still cheaper than NY. He apparently didn't realize that PA's tax was slightly lower & DE's was slightly higher than NC's.
Most of the public employees & teachers were paying more than 1.5% before that law. I watched Christie, online, on the NJPTV website. He lied through his teeth about many things, using extreme examples & stating them as if they were statewide. He's a lawyer. Do you see him renouncing his pension & free medical benefits for life after one term? That's right, no. But he wants to take it away from people who've worked a minimum of 25 years.
The pension fund is underfunded because of Christie Whitman's income tax cut, that primarily benefitted the wealthy & created a gap in the budget. She changed the law to use the states share of the pension money to plug the gap. McGreevey continued the practice while raising cigarette taxes to help plug the gap. He thought he was safe since it was still cheaper than NY. He apparently didn't realize that PA's tax was slightly lower & DE's was slightly higher than NC's.
I'm not sure if "most" employees were paying the 1-1/2%, and is that really a fair amount? The federal employee sector and private fsector's fair share is considerably more (30+%), and have co-pays and deductibles much higher than the $10 NJ public employees enjoy.
Why should any public employee get free health benefits for life? Isn't that unreasonable to expect the taxpayers, most of whom must pay for their benefits until the day they keel over to foot the bill for free public employee health benefits for life? What makes public employees so special?
Doesn't matter who lied; the pension system is underfunded. Most retirees collect what they contributed to the pension system during the first 3 years of their retirement, after that, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Governments should offer a 401K like most other employeers; it's that simple
Location: The place where the road & the sky collide
23,814 posts, read 34,693,648 times
Reputation: 10256
Quote:
Originally Posted by marc515
I'm not sure if "most" employees were paying the 1-1/2%, and is that really a fair amount? The federal employee sector and private fsector's fair share is considerably more (30+%), and have co-pays and deductibles much higher than the $10 NJ public employees enjoy.
Why should any public employee get free health benefits for life? Isn't that unreasonable to expect the taxpayers, most of whom must pay for their benefits until the day they keel over to foot the bill for free public employee health benefits for life? What makes public employees so special?
Doesn't matter who lied; the pension system is underfunded. Most retirees collect what they contributed to the pension system during the first 3 years of their retirement, after that, the money needs to come from somewhere.
Governments should offer a 401K like most other employeers; it's that simple
I have friends & family who are teachers & public employees in South Jersey. They were not paying significantly less for medical than I was, but then, I had Independence Blue Cross, since I worked in Philly. My plan was middle of the road.
But unlike the private sector, your salary doesn't go up during good times and there are no bonuses. It is the trade-off of public employment and the price of stability.
Of course not. But as a tax payer, I don't want my kid's teacher to make $12 an hour and to have no retirement. Good, important work deserves fair pay. But in any case, this argument is a red herring, and one only needs to look at government budgets to see the relatively small impact union busting will have.
And to look at the bigger picture - As a tax payer, I want the best and the brightest working for the government, not selling mattresses. If the government can't offer stability and fair pay, a downward spiral of employee quality is inevitable.
1. Pay and benefits has gone up for the public employees to the point they are unsustainable.
2. I think most of us agree taht teachers deserve fair pay. However, we must also consider they do not work a full year, and get extended holidays. I also think most of agree that they should have a retirement, but why should the taxpayers provide a defined pension which is no longer sustainable; what's wrong with a 401K plan?
3. Let's face it, the public sector on average will never be able to afford the best and the brightest. That's not saying the public sector doesn't have a lot of bright and dedicated folks, but Governments simply cannot offer the same pay as a major bank or Google. Now the stability thing is another issue; longevity and tenure has it's problems. Workers with poor work habits remain in positions simply because they can't be fired unless they really screw up, and then it's a job in itself to get rid of them. If you were to grade, promote, and retain workers on their contributions you would have a system with increased productivity, and a more competent workforce.
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.
