Massive Increases in California Public Employee Pensions (Sacramento, Bell: fit in, credit)

[Mack Knife]

1999, interesting year. Lets look at prices in the ten years since 1999 (not to forget this is 2013 nearly 4 year after that)

The state increased it's bridge tolls on the Bay Bridge 100%. Where did all that money go? Billions of dollars by now. Anyone reforming bridge tolls?

A 6 pack of Budweiser went up nearly 50% but haven't see all the drinkers of beer up in arms (and its gone up more since 2009)

A 7-11 Slurpee is up over 100% too, just they still sell them easily enough.

The New York times was up 166%, I bet the Pension Reformers read that one and pay up just fine.

The price of a gallon of gasoline? Well in 1999 it was $130. Now? And what goes up with the price of gasoline? Taxes? Maybe reform taxes? Not a chance.

What about your salary? Are you making more or less than in 1999? If your answer is yes, didn't you figure out a way to increase your retirement? No? Who is to blame?

The point of course, is that lots of things have gone up a great deal since 1999. What were State workers being paid in 1999 in comparison to the rest of the labor market? I would bet that is why so many complainers didn't take a state job, it didn't pay enough.

Like most complainers, the complaints are always loudest after someone else has done the job, worked for a benefit and then and only then, does the complainer about the benefit come forward to make a stink.

And stink it does.

[NewToCA]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

[b]
Lets not start with copy and paste knowledge, lets deal with facts ok? You read an article, believed it and started a discussion about it. The least you can do is explain the very definition upon which you base your entire argument.

Also, I note you have yet to go to the source for what is being paid out in retirement. CalPers, not the unions, not the Sacramento Bee and not some pension reform advocates is the source for facts on that topic. CalPers is audited and it really doesn't matter what the Sacramento and Pension Reformers happen to think, everyone has opinions. Lets deal with facts.

2012 are the last numbers. 2013 isn't even over yet.

I also note how conveniently you change your position to match new arguments. First, you cited figures for the CHP. Pretty good retirement but then you drop down the figure much lower because it represents a more accurate portrayal of what is really being paid to the average retired state worker. Still not factual but so much lower than your first numbers.

Actually, I haven't changed any arguments at all. Simply put, I provided an article showing increases in pension payouts. You counter that the information as presented is misleading, however the analysis from a case study done by California Common Sense showed annual state funding for retirement benefits increasing 25% since five fiscal years ago, while spending on social services has decreased 24% for the same time period.

Case Study: California

The cuts to social services have been well detailed, including a cut of over 30% for social security supplemental payments plus losses of items like dental care for handicapped adults. So there have been shifts in spending during this period, and significant increases in pension spending is part of this shift.

As specified on pages 5 and 6 of this study, increases to both retiree health care cost and pensions significantly contributes to the shift in expenditures from five fiscal years ago.

http://cacs.org/images/dynamic/artic...chments/25.pdf

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

Occupy Wall Street should really refocus their anger on the REAL 1% -- public sector unionized employees with their gold-plated pensions & Cadillac health care.

Most of those "gold-plated pensions" are based upon a formula of 2% times years of service. Most rank-and-file workers are not all that well paid so, yes, they get good benefits.

As is usual, in ignorance most, including you, misdirect their anger and level it at the workers. But the workers have no choice but to join the unions and pay dues or, if they opt out, pay "fair share" which is only a few dollars less.

But don't stop there. Blame the public employee unions. They're the ones that insist on the pay, pensions and benefits.

But don't stop there. Blame the Governor. He's the one who sold the state to the public employee unions back in 1977 in an 11th hour deal before he left office for the first time. The Governor also has to sign-off on the contracts for the employees.

But don't stop there. Blame the Legislature. They're the ones who have to approve the contracts and send them to the Governor for signature. And if CalPERS doesn't perform well, it's the Governor and legislators who have stacked the board full of their union cronies/buddies.

But don't stop there. It's you, the people, who keep returning the do nothings and idiots to office so if you continue to do that over and over expecting to get different results, do you know what that makes you?

[Mack Knife]

If you want to deal with the excesses in the public service retirement benefits in California, start at the top. Ok, just below the top- the directors and on down through the career executive appointment classifications of employees.

To understand how that works in general you need to realize that those employees are not represented by unions. They are exempt because they are managerial and executive officers and can and do give each other promotions and with that increases in salary as well as retirement benefits which go hand in hand.

Then, understand that the counties and cities set their own retirement benefits and aren't part of the statewide collective bargaining agreements.

If you really want to reform retirement entitlements, start there, not at the bottom.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by Mack Knife

If you want to deal with the excesses in the public service retirement benefits in California, start at the top. Ok, just below the top- the directors and on down through the career executive appointment classifications of employees.

To understand how that works in general you need to realize that those employees are not represented by unions. They are exempt because they are managerial and executive officers and can and do give each other promotions and with that increases in salary as well as retirement benefits which go hand in hand.

Then, understand that the counties and cities set their own retirement benefits and aren't part of the statewide collective bargaining agreements.

If you really want to reform retirement entitlements, start there, not at the bottom.

Hold on a minute there, I retired as a Manager II and no one handed it to me. You are correct, I was non-represented and hadn't been in years. Missed several COLAs because of it but they made up for it by allowing me to be furloughed just like everyone else. If I hadn't retired at the end of 2008, the 2009 furloughs would have cost me $1,000 a month. Don't see that happening to management in the private sector.

[SportyandMisty]

I'm fine with public sector employees receiving as big a pension as they can get, provided that 100% of the payments to retirees is deducted from the paychecks of currently working public sector employees. Zero Percent should come from the public.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by SportyandMisty

I'm fine with public sector employees receiving as big a pension as they can get, provided that 100% of the payments to retirees is deducted from the paychecks of currently working public sector employees. Zero Percent should come from the public.

Then the public should receive fewer services from the public employees to compensate. Either that or the pay should be raised across the board.

[expatCA]

Originally Posted by Curmudgeon

Then the public should receive fewer services from the public employees to compensate. Either that or the pay should be raised across the board.

The problem is that the public who pays gets no say. The politicians who get money from the Public Unions, do have the say.

Now voting for the same politicians again and again, well it gets the same results.

[Curmudgeon]

Originally Posted by expatCA

The problem is that the public who pays gets no say. The politicians who get money from the Public Unions, do have the say.

Now voting for the same politicians again and again, well it gets the same results.

So the public gets a very large say, or would if they weren't crazy, right?

[jw2]

I must be missing something because the solution seems easy. Drop the pension and go to a 401k style retirement. Have the employees contribute to (and be eligible for) SS as well. The state can contribute whatever they deem necessary but the important thing is it funded in the current year. No shoving costs to future generations.