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.
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,080,865 times
Reputation: 3937
Advertisements
Quote:
Originally Posted by HappyTexan
Their best bet is to end lifelong pensions for new hires. Corporations did it years ago and went to the 401K plan.
It goes way deeper than that HT..here it is customary for political hacks to run for office (however menial),get a pension and then go to work for one state funded agency after another and stack their pensions.
My family used to know this guy VERY well back during his early years and back then he was about as honest as there was around here...now? meh.
Yet another example of unelected tin gods (those judges) running the show.
As for the "remedies" being ruled illegal...huh? Here in NY, laws are changed and new retirement tiers established regularly, with newer ones always providing for a lesser benefit (otherwise known as, "the last ones hired get the [bleep].)"
Other states do it, too. I don' t know why IL would be different in that regard.
If we aren't allowed to fix the Pension problem, which at its heart fundamentally ignores math - then the pension will be lost forever eventually.
We need to elect adults willing to make tough choices to fix problems instead of ignoring them.
It's Contract Law. It's 800+ years old. Can't get around it, and really, it would immoral and unethical to void a contract without just cause.
If you can demonstrate non-performance on the part of the union, then perhaps you can legally void the contract, but my guess is that there's a severance clause to protect against that.
Ohio has a problem with this as well, and my suggestion to a few was to put the burden where it belongs. Ohio tax-payers should not be responsible, but Ohio government employee union members should be, and they should bear 100% of the burden. You can't legally tax union employees, but State and local governments could effectively "tax" union employees via payroll deduction as part of the union contract.
That got mixed reviews. My point was that, a show-down between State and local government and the State and local government unions is going to happen no matter what. Ohio has been trying to move toward a Right-to-Work for some time now, and this would be a good opportunity for Ohio and any other State to enact such legislation.
These pension plans are unsustainable, and with each renewal of the collective bargaining agreements, the pension benefits must be reduced and contributions by union employees must be increased, and there's no alternative to that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by armourereric
As the nation watches California and predicts it's demise over unfunded liabilities, the fact that Illinois and New York, on a per capita basis are significantly worse off goes unnoticed. In fact, according to a report ordered by Governor Brown to anaylize per capita debt load as part of preparing a 5 year capital improvement plan showed CA with a per capita unfunded liability of $1600, NY at $2200, and IL at $3100. I've long expected IL to going into default first.
Corporates did it decades ago. Sure you'll have people on pensions but the number will be dwindling as opposed to growing like it is now in the public sector.
Second class workers ? Really ? Joe Private Sector has been working for decades with no pension in his future..just his 401K, IRA and his own savings.
The unions have spoken.
All state and federal workers need to go to the social security system just like the rest of us working fat slobs who are third class workers if they are second.
Social security includes members of congress and all the rest right up to president. Social security is good enough for me it is good enough for you.
As far as Illinois workers go they are doomed to get 20 cents on the dollar.
Corporates did it decades ago. Sure you'll have people on pensions but the number will be dwindling as opposed to growing like it is now in the public sector.
Second class workers ? Really ? Joe Private Sector has been working for decades with no pension in his future..just his 401K, IRA and his own savings.
You want to keep public sector pensions then be prepared to pay for their retirement.
You'll be paying their pensions while you struggle yourself to live in retirement.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pghquest
I have worked in the following branches of the federal government.
Federal Reserve
IRS
Passports
And have partnered with the FBI to help shut down a few illegal enterprises..
I can tell you first hand that most government employees are nothing more than paper pushers. I could probably hire people for 1/2 of what most government employees make and you'd never notice the difference.
nothing second class in it...
I get the objections here: that the private sector made it work, we have to do something, and that most government workers are overpaid regardless.
For many government workers, all hold. I don't think it's true across the board though. Generally, unskilled and skilled low-wage-in-private-sector workers are overpaid on base and get pensions on top of that, and you can safely cut here without repercussions. For skilled workers however (technicians, regulators, managers in technical areas, and so forth), the compensation is generally materially lower just looking at wages but materially higher when looking at wages+pensions - cut down the massive pensions, and these guys are badly underpaid. Unfortunately, that's also the group that it's critical not to underpay.
A huge portion of our economy - including the private bits of it - is heavily influenced by regulations written and enforced by state and federal government bureaucrats and the results can be nasty if those guys are incompetent or captured by the industries they are regulating -- both of which are likely outcomes if the total compensation is way below private sector. The worry isn't we'll be underpaying the paper-pushers enforcing the regulations in specific incidents (we probably won't be and if we did it wouldn't matter so much) but that we will be underpaying the people writing the regulations in the first place (we probably will and it does matter).
The private sector can make these changes work -- if you have a key group of post-change hires getting under-compensated after a pension change, you can raise their wages in a targeted way. I don't think the public sector has the competence or managerial or political will to do so, and if they did the unions would fight for the same increases for more senior and/or less critical employees still getting the pensions. So with these changes there's a real danger of either recruiting bottom-barrel people into regulatory positions and/or accelerating the revolving door with industry hard.
We do have to do something, yes, but this particular solution while politically easy because it protects the government unions and the current incumbents both fails to deal with the costs being incurred by the entire current workforce and much of the workforce for decades to come, and opens the door to problems in the recruitment, retention, and incentives for some of the most critical people in government (in their ability to do good or harm). It's a low-benefit, high-side-effect solution and while arguably better than doing nothing at all, worse than most alternative options.
Illinois has $167,000,000.00 in unfunded state employee benefits (pension + healthcare).
Illinois spends 1 out of every 4 of its tax dollars collected on retired employees.
Illinois passed a law to help alleviate (but not solve) this pension nightmare by making younger workers collect a bit less in retirement, capping the max yearly pension at $110,600 a year (with a few exceptions), and yearly increases tied to inflation not a standard minimum 3% a year.
And workers get to contribute less into the pension by 1%!
And a court said that this was illegal for the state to have done -- so Illinois is back on their disastrous course.
Sounds about right. It's unconstitutional. Until the constitution is changed there isn't any reason to expect union benefits to change.
The results of an audit would send the public into a panic and point fingers at every single POTUS because not one of them has ever addressed the deficit.
The results of an audit would send the public into a panic and point fingers at every single POTUS because not one of them has ever addressed the deficit.
Didnt Obama promise to do an audit, in fact he said he'd go through the budget line by line...
Eventually new politicians will come in and they will declare they are bankrupt. That means pensions are down the list of bondholders. Likely out come is unions coming to sense and making a deal or its followed thru and they lose a lot. Best thing would be a deal and sooner the better for all involved. Illinois and California were only two states Identified has likely in the congresses State of the State hearings testimony.
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.
