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.
No one said it was not nice to be able to fight for benefits.
I have a brother that works for a large corporation that had a pension change those employees went to court to fight that change also.
While following the many court cases with both public and private pensions I have come to realize that one factor that seems to offer more protection is whether the pension is a contributory or non-contributory plan.
A non-contributory plan is often considered an employee benefit while a contributory plan is considered a contracted right.
You need 2 parties to agree to changes in a contract. It cannot be done unilaterally. Employee benefits changes are done all the time
i expect public employees and unions to fight for their benefits. it doesnt bother me to see people fighting for the best deal possible. but there is another side of that fight and its the taxpayers. so someone needs to represent us taxpayers also.
i dont think contracts should be unilaterally changed but contracts expire. new deals are made and if the employer cant afford something; then the compensation cost must be reduced (or the employer should go bankrupt).
i dont think contracts should be unilaterally changed but contracts expire. new deals are made and if the employer cant afford something; then the compensation cost must be reduced (or the employer should go bankrupt).
The trouble is employers ALWAYS seem to say they can't afford something and the latest trend has been to ask for give backs. ex: Hostess/Wonder Bread asked the bakers union to take their 2nd round of pay cuts, they refused, (the Teamsters had already taken 2 cuts). Hostess went out of business, but funny thing, the WHOLE management team left millionaires. It seems that's the game plan, I figured A&P was going to go out when the sold the Eight O'clock coffee brand, the beginning of the end. I wonder how many of their upper management became millionaires. As it was A&P wanted to cut severance benefits that they had negotiated previously which the courts prevented.
While you refer to "tyrannical government", I think a bigger problem is corporate greed and tyrannical boards of directors, an "old boy" network. (Look at some boards, a CEO of company A is on the board of company B and they're both on the board of company C and so on).
The trouble is employers ALWAYS seem to say they can't afford something and the latest trend has been to ask for give backs. ex: Hostess/Wonder Bread asked the bakers union to take their 2nd round of pay cuts, they refused, (the Teamsters had already taken 2 cuts). Hostess went out of business, but funny thing, the WHOLE management team left millionaires. It seems that's the game plan, I figured A&P was going to go out when the sold the Eight O'clock coffee brand, the beginning of the end. I wonder how many of their upper management became millionaires. As it was A&P wanted to cut severance benefits that they had negotiated previously which the courts prevented.
While you refer to "tyrannical government", I think a bigger problem is corporate greed and tyrannical boards of directors, an "old boy" network. (Look at some boards, a CEO of company A is on the board of company B and they're both on the board of company C and so on).
thats a part of negotiating. it doesnt matter what the employer says. if its a private employer, the employee/union will either accept the deal or find work elsewhere. ultimately, an employer needs to provide competitive compensation if they want to stay in business. the problem with a public sector deal is that its about screwing over taxpayers who dont have any choice but to pay taxes. in the private sector, you cant raise prices or customers will go elsewhere.
who cares if the ceo of company A is on the board of company B? you manufacture problems where they dont exist and ignore problems where they do exist. i think government is tyrannical for many reasons but ill stick on topic by suggesting that politicians negotiate bad deals because they can raise taxes and fees on taxpayers unlike private business. even if they dont raise taxes and fees, they can raise debt which is just a sneaky tax because ultimately the debt must be paid by taxpayers. i do not think government should be allowed to raise debt.
thats a part of negotiating. it doesnt matter what the employer says. if its a private employer, the employee/union will either accept the deal or find work elsewhere. ultimately, an employer needs to provide competitive compensation if they want to stay in business. the problem with a public sector deal is that its about screwing over taxpayers who dont have any choice but to pay taxes. in the private sector, you cant raise prices or customers will go elsewhere.
who cares if the ceo of company A is on the board of company B? you manufacture problems where they dont exist and ignore problems where they do exist. i think government is tyrannical for many reasons but ill stick on topic by suggesting that politicians negotiate bad deals because they can raise taxes and fees on taxpayers unlike private business. even if they dont raise taxes and fees, they can raise debt which is just a sneaky tax because ultimately the debt must be paid by taxpayers. i do not think government should be allowed to raise debt.
Well............Yes taxpayer have to pay taxes, but they do have a choice on election day, they can also go speak up at a town council meeting. So how is the government tyrannical? They are elected by a "fair" vote, (we won't get into a discussion of gerrymandering).
Corporate corruption IS an existing problem, and YES it's an old boys network and what company A does company C seems to do soon after. The latest trend seems to be moving company headquarters overseas to avoid taxes, which ends up raising the tax burden on the rest of us.
Well............Yes taxpayer have to pay taxes, but they do have a choice on election day, they can also go speak up at a town council meeting. So how is the government tyrannical? They are elected by a "fair" vote, (we won't get into a discussion of gerrymandering).
Corporate corruption IS an existing problem, and YES it's an old boys network and what company A does company C seems to do soon after. The latest trend seems to be moving company headquarters overseas to avoid taxes, which ends up raising the tax burden on the rest of us.
the voter has no say in the actions of politicians. voting doesnt mean a thing. voters can also be tyrants as well. who cares what voters say? you shouldnt be able to vote away other people's rights. yet people think they can and government enforces tyrannical laws every day.
so who is this corporate corruption hurting? moving headquarters wouldnt be corruption. if its legal, how is that corrupt?
Captain the State can afford the pension it is only 1.5% of the budget. What it is having trouble with is making up the payments and the investment returns on that money the missed for the last 20 years.
That cannot be renegotiated retroactively.
So any change going forward saves very little money. Even if you went to no pensions at all going forward and a 401k with a small match of a low amount the savings to taxpayers would not be noticeable, That is the reality of why it is never proposed because our pols have every convinced that taxes are high because of pensions.
So only savings that would make a difference would be to default on the past due pension payments but to do that you would have to default on other debt. Any default would cost taxpayers much more in higher borrowing costs than going to no pension.
Captain the State can afford the pension it is only 1.5% of the budget. What it is having trouble with is making up the payments and the investment returns on that money the missed for the last 20 years.
That cannot b
So any change going forward saves very little money. Even if you went to no pensions at all going forward and a 401k with a small match of a low amount the savings to taxpayers would not be noticeable, That is the reality of why it is never proposed because our pols have every convinced that taxes are high because of pensions.
So only savings that would make a difference would be to default on the past due pension payments but to do that you would have to default on other debt. Any default would cost taxpayers much more in higher borrowing costs than going to no pension.
if you can afford the going forward costs but not the accumulated back costs, that sounds like bankruptcy is the best option to me.
i generally support governments defaulting on debt and not being allowed to issue new debt. government debt is just a back door tax, so im ok with higher borrowing costs.
Captain- first States cannot go bankrupt. Second even if they could it is not like the State cannot make the payment it is that they want to use the money for other things none of which have to be paid and would not be paid under a bankruptcy if it was allowed.
It would be like you saying you cannot pay your bills (like child support) because you want to give money to your mistress. Bankruptcy would not be any help.
Captain- first States cannot go bankrupt. Second even if they could it is not like the State cannot make the payment it is that they want to use the money for other things none of which have to be paid and would not be paid under a bankruptcy if it was allowed.
It would be like you saying you cannot pay your bills (like child support) because you want to give money to your mistress. Bankruptcy would not be any help.
There you go again, posting something that is factual.
Don't you know that this forum is all about posting...feelings and..."truthiness"...even if that results in posting things that are inaccurate and that fly in the face of reality? Come on...get with the program, man!
After all, if we rely on factual information, how can we continue to try to penalize all public employees simply because they are/were public employees, and for no other reason? How else can we undercut our fellow citizens in our mad Race to The Bottom?
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.
