[larsm]

Originally Posted by mikeandaija2009

If the State really opened there eyes to what's happening today, and change the work and retirement ethic, they could save millions. For instance a former co-worker of my wife, has a base salary of $70k....not bad. Last year, with her combined OT, she made $189k. She isn't the only one to do this, I know of several. The one that gets me the most is a former co-worker of my wife who was a nurses aid type worker. High school educated, not a highly skilled job. Her base was round $58k. She worked double shifts everyday her last 3 years before retirement, spending most of 3rd shift napping. Not only did she pocket of $200k a year, but she now is retired and collecting $148k a year. It's sickening.

If this is true, it is beyond sickening, it should be criminal. Overtime should not enter into the calculation for pension obligations.

[seymourct]

Again it's kinda amazing once you start playing with that link:

Transparency Connecticut

I plugged in search employees whose fringe benefits = $35,000 per year or more.
That search produced a list of 9,370 employees. That's a lot of fringe.

[hartford_renter]

Originally Posted by RunD1987

They shouldn't cut any jobs in DMHAS, Disability Services, DPH, State Police, Judicial, Corrections, Law Enforcement, or VA.

You can get rid of the police pensions

You can probably fire about half the state troopers, they are fancy meter maids at best.

The only group I would be hesitant to cut is the disability services

Yes fire them!

[RunD1987]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

You can get rid of the police pensions

You can probably fire about half the state troopers, they are fancy meter maids at best.

The only group I would be hesitant to cut is the disability services

Yes fire them!

The state already cut police services in CT greatly affecting the state. Especially in the north eastern area's.

[RunD1987]

Advocates say social service, mental health cuts will hurt | The CT Mirror

[Sigequinox]

Originally Posted by hartford_renter

You can get rid of the police pensions

You can probably fire about half the state troopers, they are fancy meter maids at best.

The only group I would be hesitant to cut is the disability services

Yes fire them!

Definitely do NOT cut disability. That's pretty jacked up. Those people truly need help.

Definitely DO cut the welfare funding. All the proponents make a big stink about how much these able bodied, able minded people need it, but in the end what are they gonna do, die? No. They're not going to die. They're going to get jobs or move to some sucker state like NY. Either way, our problem in that respect is solved. Only the truly needy should get welfare and there must be REASONABLE limits on those who are capable of work. We must stop enabling people who are addicted to a life of underachievement or, worse yet, no achievement at all...

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by NewJeffCT

For the longer-term, decreasing utility costs - especially electricity - should be a major goal

Until you get the NIMBY factor out of the equation, the power prices are just going up and up. CT can buy a lot of power from Quebec, but it can't deliver it because anti-science goofs believe that having a high voltage transmission line anywhere near them is harmful.

[HeadedWest]

Originally Posted by basehead617

IUnfortunately it looks bad on paper with so many uneducated unskilled workers making into six figures.

It not only looks bad on paper, it's really stupid in real life.

[mels]

There are always those urban legends of administrative assistants on the state payroll who has been there for 40 years and makes $90K annually. Is there any truth to these "stories"? As a state employee, do you truly just keep raking in the raises and promotions for no other reason than you have sat your aging rear end in the same seat for decades?

From an anecdotal perspective, the state agencies I have worked with seemed to be most bloated in the middle management layer.

[Lincolnian]

I'm surprised this topic hasn't attracted more interest. It seems to be the underlying theme to nearly every thread about the disadvantages of living in CT. Although taxes are obviously a key issue the discussion should center on how to more efficiently provide necessary services while promoting job growth. Unfortunately the discussion often turns into a public (pro-union) vs private (anti-union) debate centered on popular political themes. The pension discussion has been disingenuous. I worked in private industry before becoming a public employee and had a pension plan very similar to the one I pay into now. My former employer was one of the first companies to offer a 401k and the representatives from Fidelity made it clear to employees that the 401k was a supplemental retirement plan as it was never designed nor was it sufficient to be a primary source of funds in retirement. The 401k plan has not been time-proven as a relatively small number of people have actually retired on this plan and drawn from it for an extended period of time. There is some evidence that as more people enter the plan the lower the returns become as the supply of money in these funds become more abundant. Essentially, there are a similar number of companies that the majority of the money goes into today as it was 30 years ago during the infancy of the 401k. In contrast, former private pensions often largely invested in local private and public projects in the communities they served and the returns were more predictable. The companies and their employees had vested interests for the success of the projects for both their own financial success as well as the company's and employees' wellbeing. The companies were integral members of the communities and they balanced the interests of shareholders, the interests of employees and the interests of the community as part of doing business. With more pension money dependent upon the performance of a company's stock, many employees are being forced into feeding into a model for retirement which has the potential to eliminate their own job and/or adversely affect the community they live in. In the long run Connecticut, and the rest of the country, need to address the over reliance of our economic well being on Wall Street and big bank financial products and instead look to develop policies and incentives that promote domestic job growth and protect both the interests of labor and capital. For our own state budget it involves the equitable treatment of public employees and the expectations that contributions, compensation and benefits are commensurate with what takes place in the private sector. It also means that not all services are treated equally. Certainly cuts in funding for the disabled should not be treated the same as cuts to sports subsidies and other non-essential budgetary items.