Here's one reason why race relations in Chicago are fragile... (Springfield: appointed, employment)

[mjtinmemphis]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

I think lenniel is referring to Karen Lewis' comment that the public sector have been one of the few avenues traditionally available which has shored up the black middle class, and a pension default would hurt that group disproportionately.

I suspect that she's right, and that unfortunately there are a lot of people out there who are convinced that there are lazy black City workers who don't deserve the pensions they worked for - and contributed to.

I also suspect that a pension default would hurt people everywhere in this region. I can't stand this "I don't get a pension, why should they?" race to the bottom mentality...

I understand

[Drover]

Originally Posted by madpaddy

The state needs to honor pension commitments it has made in the past . . .

Why? It's not like those commitments were negotiated by parties situated at arms length. Many were negotiated by administrations that were paid for in part by the unions sitting on the other side of the table from them. If that's the means by which they secured their "commitments," then cry me a river if that's the same means by which those commitments are rescinded. The political process giveth, the political process taketh away.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Drover

Why? It's not like those commitments were negotiated by parties situated at arms length. Many were negotiated by administrations that were paid for in part by the unions sitting on the other side of the table from them. If that's the means by which they secured their "commitments," then cry me a river if that's the same means by which those commitments are rescinded. The political process giveth, the political process taketh away.

It isn't a commitment, it's a legally binding contractual obligation. That can't be taken away by "political process" in the same way that a company can't skip out on it's debts by changing management. Any attempt by the city to unilaterally reduce pensions will result in nothing more than millions in legal bills.

[misscertamae]

I have worked my entire adult life and still working part time even though I'm retired. I'm existing on my pension, which I paid into every payday. If it were to change at this point, I don't know what I'd do. My daughter, who recently received her Ph.D. in education is a substitute cps teacher, Very low pay and no benefits. Her school was one of the schools closed by Mr. Rham. She didn't have enough seniority to get another position, because now its back to having the right connections. no one has ever said to me "just rely on the government". The people I know, who are dependent on some government assistance would prefer to have decent paying jobs. And don't forget many of these same folks are working poor.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Attrill

It isn't a commitment, it's a legally binding contractual obligation. That can't be taken away by "political process" in the same way that a company can't skip out on it's debts by changing management. Any attempt by the city to unilaterally reduce pensions will result in nothing more than millions in legal bills.

Yep. Pay the debts, and remember who the buffoons are come Election Day so it doesn't happen again.

[Larry Siegel]

Pay the debts, and pass a constitutional amendment making it illegal for public sector unions to engage in collective bargaining with governments.

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Yep. Pay the debts, and remember who the buffoons are come Election Day so it doesn't happen again.

As long as unions get to "negotiate" with political allies on the other side of the table from them whom they helped to put there, it will happen again.

[Chi-town Native]

Originally Posted by Drover

As long as unions get to "negotiate" with political allies on the other side of the table from them whom they helped to put there, it will happen again.

Collective bargaining is true to the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lobbying via campaign contributions is a tragic consequence of corporate personhood. As long as the SCOTUS defines these donations as a protected form of free speech, we all lose. Don't hate the player - hate the game.

[Attrill]

Originally Posted by Drover

As long as unions get to "negotiate" with political allies on the other side of the table from them whom they helped to put there, it will happen again.

You also have to remember that the problem with Illinois and Chicago pensions have absolutely nothing to do with the generosity of the benefits. Plenty of states and municipalities have more generous pensions and are completely solvent. The problem is that both the state and the city kept taking "pension holidays" and failed to contribute what they had committed to. A few hundred million invested in the 90's could have saved us billions today.

All unions fought against that. Politicians were the ones who fought for it, and financial companies that were responsible for investing the money gave them the cover to go ahead and do it (in exchange for millions in fees).

[Drover]

Originally Posted by Chi-town Native

Collective bargaining is true to the spirit of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Lobbying via campaign contributions is a tragic consequence of corporate personhood. As long as the SCOTUS defines these donations as a protected form of free speech, we all lose. Don't hate the player - hate the game.

Freedom of speech and of assembly that guarantee the right of unions to exist are true to the spirit of the Constitution. But the Constitution does not guarantee them a captive audience, as many air traffic controllers for instance found out the hard way.

Collective bargaining is largely a legislative construct; and since governments are blessed with the inestimable gift of sovereign immunity, they are exempt from the collective bargaining laws that obligate private enterprises to negotiate exclusively with unions should their employees so choose. (Unfortunately, they are also exempt from ERISA laws that require pensions to be fully funded.) This is why many states and the federal government do not engage in collective bargaining with employees over matters of pay and benefits. "The game" in this case can be easily changed by restricting public-sector collective bargaining as many states and the federal government have done. Or at the very least, require collective bargaining be conducted by a third-party arbitrator so that the parties are actually at arms length and not arm-in-arm.

Originally Posted by Attrill

You also have to remember that the problem with Illinois and Chicago pensions have absolutely nothing to do with the generosity of the benefits. Plenty of states and municipalities have more generous pensions and are completely solvent. The problem is that both the state and the city kept taking "pension holidays" and failed to contribute what they had committed to. A few hundred million invested in the 90's could have saved us billions today.

All unions fought against that. Politicians were the ones who fought for it, and financial companies that were responsible for investing the money gave them the cover to go ahead and do it (in exchange for millions in fees).

To say it has "absolutely nothing to do with the generosity of the benefits" is nonsense. Obviously underfunding is a big part of the problem. But other factors include allowing people to retire as early as their 50s, inflating employees' salaries toward the end of their service so that their pension is based on a higher final working salary, an automatic COLA of 3% regardless of the actual rate of inflation that effectively doubles pension payouts to those who live to their life expectancy, et cetera.