SJPD vs Chuck Reed (San Jose: layoffs, salary, live) - California (CA) - City-Data Forum

Phil306 · 01-05-2013, 10:07 PM

Internal Affairs: Cops not pleased with mayor bearing treats - San Jose Mercury News

This is only going to get worse and I gurantee the police department will win. Will take awhile, but they will and the losers? The citizens of San Jose.

bigdumbgod · 01-06-2013, 12:02 AM

Cops can throw a tantrum all they want, but it doesn't change the fact that SJ can't afford to continue dolling out massive pensions to these guys and stay solvent. Reed should be applauded for standing up to the police and firemen's unions, since it is often the last thing a politician would want to do.

mysticaltyger · 01-06-2013, 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Phil306

Internal Affairs: Cops not pleased with mayor bearing treats - San Jose Mercury News

This is only going to get worse and I guarantee the police department will win. Will take awhile, but they will and the losers? The citizens of San Jose.

The citizens of San Jose "lost" more than a decade ago when the police and firefighters unions pushed for pensions that paid out 90% of the highest year's salary (up from 70%). The damage has already been done. We're in damage control mode now and will be for some time to come.

roadwarrior101 · 01-06-2013, 11:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The citizens of San Jose "lost" more than a decade ago when the police and firefighters unions pushed for pensions that paid out 90% of the highest year's salary (up from 70%). The damage has already been done. We're in damage control mode now and will be for some time to come.

Well, times are changing. As more and more cities are unable to pay this type of pension system, the unions will have less and less leverage now. They may win in the short term, but this will only result in more layoffs. Time to privatize the retirement system for all public employees.

mysticaltyger · 01-06-2013, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by roadwarrior101

Well, times are changing. As more and more cities are unable to pay this type of pension system, the unions will have less and less leverage now. They may win in the short term, but this will only result in more layoffs. Time to privatize the retirement system for all public employees.

Believe it or not, I do have a modicum of sympathy for Phil. As a public employee myself, I can see how individual workers don't really have any control over what the union does. The union sets their agenda and gets people who are willing to implement it. Your average worker doesn't think about the long term, and neither does your average career unionist. When promises can't be delivered, the career unionists who promoted financially unsustainable pensions are nowhere to be found, or blame the politicians. They are never held accountable.

Changing someone's benefits in mid-steam is unfair on a lot of different levels. And we have people who retired over the last decade who got great benefits for which they paid relatively little. Back in the late 1990s, I paid under 5% of my pay toward the pension. Now it's 13%. Of course, the City's contribution is even more than mine, so I can understand why the City has financial problems. Of course, because pension benefits are based on one's highest year of pay, they have effectively already been cut, since everyone took a 10% cut in pay, but that is likely not going to be enough.

The problem with having total 401k plans is that the vast majority of people simply don't save enough (although good plan design can compensate for this). We have a deferred compensation plan similar to 401ks and it's a good plan with good funds and reasonable costs. I have always tried to save as if I wasn't going to get the pension...but I know I am part of a small minority. And even when you suspect the pension benefits are not sustainable, it's still a major punch in the gut when the cut happens.

The biggest problem I have with people like Phil is they just float along the surface of life, never looking at the deeper causes of anything. He is like a 5 year old who is upset because something is being taken away from him. All he cares about is "me and mine" and the heck with everyone else. He detects this attitude in people like Chuck Reed but doesn't notice it in himself.

bigdumbgod · 01-06-2013, 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

He is like a 5 year old who is upset because something is being taken away from him. All he cares about is "me and mine" and the heck with everyone else.

A certain political party has been barreling along with this ideology for all too long, and getting more obtuse and ridiculous by the day. Time to grow up.

Funny how this bunch would be on the side of (gasp) unions on this issue, if not merely because it's an easily identifiable enemy to defy - a mayor fighting the "me and mine" mentality in a time of fiscal crisis. But they wouldn't really back the unions, would they?

mysticaltyger · 01-06-2013, 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

A certain political party has been barreling along with this ideology for all too long, and getting more obtuse and ridiculous by the day. Time to grow up.

Funny how this bunch would be on the side of (gasp) unions on this issue, if not merely because it's an easily identifiable enemy to defy - a mayor fighting the "me and mine" mentality in a time of fiscal crisis. But they wouldn't really back the unions, would they?

Say what? The "me and mine" attitude is not unique to any political party. The only difference is the form it takes. Everyone notices the mentality of greed in "the other guy" but not in themselves.

bigdumbgod · 01-06-2013, 05:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

Say what? The "me and mine" attitude is not unique to any political party. The only difference is the form it takes. Everyone notices the mentality of greed in "the other guy" but not in themselves.

One in particular seeks to enrich the rich at the expense of all others. When the whole of one's view of success is simply amassing personal wealth, and there is an extremely powerful lobbying army firmly entrenched in the side that bases all its strategies on that one goal, they're the ones who clearly embrace the singular pursuit of "me and mine."

roadwarrior101 · 01-06-2013, 05:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mysticaltyger

The problem with having total 401k plans is that the vast majority of people simply don't save enough (although good plan design can compensate for this).

Yes, but that is beside the point. Most people in the private sector don't contribute enough either, but you don't see companies holding onto pensions. I disagree that it is unfair to change the rules mid-stream. If the government can't afford their bills, the taxpayers shouldn't be gouged, so some government employees can be taken care of for life. Time for a bit of personal responsibility here.

Maybe I've grown up never thinking that the government would take care of me, and I've accumulated a lot in my 401k at a fairly young wage. The social security payment I'll possibility receive is just icing on the cake. If it doesn't materialize, its not going to kill me. We need others to behave in this same manner.

mysticaltyger · 01-06-2013, 05:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigdumbgod

One in particular seeks to enrich the rich at the expense of all others. When the whole of one's view of success is simply amassing personal wealth, and there is an extremely powerful lobbying army firmly entrenched in the side that bases all its strategies on that one goal, they're the ones who clearly embrace the singular pursuit of "me and mine."

That's mostly BS straight from the 90% of journalists who are liberal democrats. They look for every example to demonize one party and treat the other party with kid gloves. But now this thread is going off topic.