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.
Buddy Cianci is more responsible for the Providence pension fund issue than any other person. He was mayor for longer than anyone else and did nothing to address the looming crisis and instead made it worse by continuously giving overly generous contracts to union groups such as the PPD and PFD. That is why, despite, him being twice convicted, they both endorsed him in his last run where he lost to Elroza. They knew that Buddy, as a non Democrat in Providence, would always need them at election time and therefore always take care of them.
But Buddy also realized the need for growth and development. While he did oversee large pay increases to certain city workers (that weren't sustainable if they were to continue), reality is that expansion of the tax base is the only realistic way out of the problem. There was all kinds of money and development rolling into the city when Buddy was at the helm, after that it all of a sudden...progress just STOPPED. The city has been in a sad state of stagnation since then.
While it is not good to take away benefits, the Federal Goverment changed their pension program in 1984.
The Feds switched over to a three pronged retirment for all new employees. A small percentage of their salary would count towards an annuity, Social Security participation and final a 401K where they match up to 5%.
When I left the state in the mid eighties they were talking about the future crisis of unfunded pensions.
I would have thought like the fed they would have transitioned new employees over to a similar system.
Getting a state or city job is still a good deal and I don't think it would have turned away people from public sector jobs.
While it is not good to take away benefits, the Federal Goverment changed their pension program in 1984.
The Feds switched over to a three pronged retirment for all new employees. A small percentage of their salary would count towards an annuity, Social Security participation and final a 401K where they match up to 5%.
When I left the state in the mid eighties they were talking about the future crisis of unfunded pensions.
I would have thought like the fed they would have transitioned new employees over to a similar system.
Getting a state or city job is still a good deal and I don't think it would have turned away people from public sector jobs.
My two cents.
100% agree but the RI public sector unions will not give one inch.
While it is not good to take away benefits, the Federal Goverment changed their pension program in 1984.
The Feds switched over to a three pronged retirment for all new employees. A small percentage of their salary would count towards an annuity, Social Security participation and final a 401K where they match up to 5%.
When I left the state in the mid eighties they were talking about the future crisis of unfunded pensions.
I would have thought like the fed they would have transitioned new employees over to a similar system.
Getting a state or city job is still a good deal and I don't think it would have turned away people from public sector jobs.
My two cents.
The state has rectified its unfunded pension liabilities and seem out of the woods. The city has not. And, the city, perhaps arguably, had a larger unfunded pension liability percentage to begin with.
The state has rectified its unfunded pension liabilities and seem out of the woods. The city has not. And, the city, perhaps arguably, had a larger unfunded pension liability percentage to begin with.
Might just be me, but I would jump at the chance for a public sector job even with a new pension scenario.
Conventional wisdom would think those already grandfathered in have less at stake with requiring new employees to switch over.
Might just be me, but I would jump at the chance for a public sector job even with a new pension scenario.
Conventional wisdom would think those already grandfathered in have less at stake with requiring new employees to switch over.
Getting out of the pension problem by providing new hires with less or no benefit doesn't work. The volume of existing living pensioners is too heavy compared with the relatively few new hires today. Very few leaves city employment until they're ready for a pension. New hires in the city are few & far in between.
The union jobs which don't require a bachelor's degree are indeed considered very desirable compared to the private sector. As the education requirement rises, city jobs tend to have equal salaries or even less than the equivalent private sector employment.
Getting out of the pension problem by providing new hires with less or no benefit doesn't work. The volume of existing living pensioners is too heavy compared with the relatively few new hires today. Very few leaves city employment until they're ready for a pension. New hires in the city are few & far in between.
Which is why chopping all of the existing obligated benefits (only possible with a bankruptcy), or expanding the tax base are the only real options outside of this one-time fix. Eloraza has opposed both. IT would still make the city much stronger in the future to make those reforms going forward from here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by independent man
The union jobs which don't require a bachelor's degree are indeed considered very desirable compared to the private sector. As the education requirement rises, city jobs tend to have equal salaries or even less than the equivalent private sector employment.
The public sector jobs often make up for the lower pay with the extensive benefits received (to include the bloated pensions). RI is not exactly swimming in good private sector jobs.
It has worked for the Feds and those employees hired from 1984 until 2013 I believe only put .08% towards their pension while those newer hires are putting in 4%. There are proposals to increase to 6%.
I agree that something needs to be done to bring in businees's that can supplement the tax base. There a lot of towns that share the same need also though.
When I left the state in the early 80's, my thoughts at that time was the state had a pretty robust industrial base. While not huge, Bostich, Browne and Sharpe, AT. Cross, Imperial Knife and others along with the jewelry industry had a pretty strong presence in RI.
I am also probably the last person who should be commenting on this as I am no longer a full time resident.
I do have a lot of great memories of how vibrant the state was during the 60's, 70's, 80's.
The city should be united in supporting Elorza's plan to monetize the Water Supply asset in order to reduce the unfunded liability to a viable number. Those who are not on board need to propose an alternative. All I hear are crickets!
It's not even clear if the city owns the water supply. So, attempting to monetize it may not even be possible.
As for an alternative, sure.
Let's start by getting rid of this sanctuary city stuff. Tens of thousands of people living in Providence are not US citizens and pay no tax. Crack down on this and replace them with tax paying citizens.
Next, a major crackdown on crime is in order. Contrary to what some uninformed C-D members believe, crime in Providence is out of control. When a murder on Fountain St is nothing more than a blip on the radar, there's a serious problem.
There's been way too much focus on making certain parts of the city look pretty. Meanwhile, the rest of the city has been ignored and crime has become rampant throughout nearly the entire city.
(Crime stat freaks - please don't even bother. Anyone who spends any significant amount of time in the city knows what's up.)
Elorza can't seem to grasp that his efforts are pointless when people don't want to go to Providence because of the crime. And if people don't want to go there, money isn't being spent there. And if money isn't being spent there, the city isn't getting squat.
It's really not that difficult to comprehend. You want tax money? Make the city inviting by eliminating the vast majority of the crime. While controversial, implementing stop-and-frisk may be exactly what's needed.
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.
