Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York
 [Register]
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.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 01-28-2012, 03:12 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,410 posts, read 26,339,824 times
Reputation: 15709

Advertisements

This should have been done under Tier 5.

Some good provisions like excluding overtime, Cap at $179,000.

"Provisions in the legislation include:
  • Raising the retirement age from 62 to 65
  • Ending early retirement
  • Requiring employees to contribute six percent of their salary for the duration of their career
  • Providing a 1.67 percent annual pension multiplier
  • Vesting after 12 years instead of 10 years
  • Excluding overtime from final average salary
  • Using a five year final average salary calculation with an 8 percent anti-spiking cap
  • Excluding wages above the Governor's salary of $179,000 from the final average salary calculation
  • Eliminating lump sum payouts for unused vacation leave from the final average salary calculation
  • Prohibiting the use of unused sick leave for additional service credit at retirement"
Governor Cuomo Introduces Pension Reform Legislation | Governor Andrew M. Cuomo
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 01-28-2012, 04:17 PM
 
Location: The Internet
355 posts, read 870,131 times
Reputation: 443
Wow, hard to believe he's a Democrat. This is the stuff that fiscal conservatives salivate over. To future government employees, the gravy train is over. However this is a victory for all property owners as it will help to keep property taxes down and force government to start acting responsible with taxpayer money, as it should.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 01:00 AM
 
3,955 posts, read 5,089,392 times
Reputation: 4185
I did a short computation on the devaluation of this Tier 6, vs. Tier 4 employees who the bulk of currently employed public servants are.

The largest groups represented on tier 4 ran from 1983 to 2009.
Tier 5 may only from 2010 until 2012... unusually short.

Given a 30 year career, with the employee starting at 60K and moving to 90K upon their 30th year of service.

The Tier 4 employee gets a retirement package worth essentially 1,045,250 assuming they live 20 years past retirement. (to say 85) Taking into account the costs put in to the system as contributions.

The Tier 6 employee gets a retirement package worth essentially 614,496 assuming they live 17 years past retirement. (to say 85) Taking into account the costs put in to the system as contributions.

The 3 year difference represents the longer age in which it requires one to retire.
If the Tier 4 employee works another 3 years their benefit grows higher. Salaries for every public employee are capped by 30 years on the job, so that would not greatly change computations.

This is a benefit decrease of 41.21%.

Who is this fair to? The taxpayers of 2043? (The first opportunity a retiree of Tier 6 will collect)
Why is today's generation of workers once again getting shafted to pay for the generation that preceded them?

We waited 26 years to take stock of what plagued Tier 4, and yet 3 years to take stock of what plagued Tier 5...?
Frankly, there isn't a single retiree on Tier 5- so why is this change so necessary now.

This is another case of the past borrowing from the future.

Whether you want to believe public servants deserve any pension retirement plan as such or not- that I leave up to you. I don't really believe it is my place here to debate that...

but... how can we consciously make a decision to give employees hired no more than 4 years after their counterparts 41% less benefits simply because of their date of hire? Somehow to me, that's quite absurd.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 09:53 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,410 posts, read 26,339,824 times
Reputation: 15709
The issue is that Tier 5 did not go far enough, the political climate has changed with the latest pension costs being passed to taxpayers. The system is broken and it needs to be addressed now, just because it won't solve todays problem is no reason to maintain the staus quo.

The issues with the pension system have been there for sometime, but they have been masked by a very good returns in the market. Pensions are heavily dependent on stock market returns, not so much on employee contributions.

Tier 6 will only impact new employees, why is that an issue, are any of the proposals unreasonable?




Slightly off topic but this is the latest article from today's Newsday below, I know the average retiree is nowhere close to these pensions but this is totally insane, these are superintendents of school districts, not CEO's.

"sixty-three percent of these highly compensated retirees were from Long Island, as identified by their former school districts and other workplaces. The region was home to nine of the top 10 recipients -- the majority of them former school superintendents -- whose maximum annual pensions ranged from about $214,000 to $316,500."

High pensions for retired school officials
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 01:09 PM
 
3,955 posts, read 5,089,392 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by Goodnight View Post
The issue is that Tier 5 did not go far enough, the political climate has changed with the latest pension costs being passed to taxpayers. The system is broken and it needs to be addressed now, just because it won't solve todays problem is no reason to maintain the staus quo.

The issues with the pension system have been there for sometime, but they have been masked by a very good returns in the market. Pensions are heavily dependent on stock market returns, not so much on employee contributions.

Tier 6 will only impact new employees, why is that an issue, are any of the proposals unreasonable?




Slightly off topic but this is the latest article from today's Newsday below, I know the average retiree is nowhere close to these pensions but this is totally insane, these are superintendents of school districts, not CEO's.

"sixty-three percent of these highly compensated retirees were from Long Island, as identified by their former school districts and other workplaces. The region was home to nine of the top 10 recipients -- the majority of them former school superintendents -- whose maximum annual pensions ranged from about $214,000 to $316,500."

High pensions for retired school officials
I think asking employees hired 4 years after their coworkers to take a 41% lower retirement package is incredibly unreasonable.

While the political climate may change, the problems were caused by those who drafted the retirement schemes and politicians who negotiated these back during the Tier 1 & 2 stages- rather than come up with ways to see those retired superintendents (from your example) give back (seeing as most of them put 0% in)- you'd rather see new employees put in higher amounts for their lifetime just to continue to feed this system which you already have some disagreement in?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 02:40 PM
 
4,135 posts, read 10,828,927 times
Reputation: 2698
For the record, for those who don't know:
Tier I went to June 30, 1973
Tier II went from July 1, 1973 to July 30, 1976.

Most of the state worked for and still works for LESS in salary than those south of Westchester Co. make in pensions. You let people raise the salaries, you are living with the results.

WithDisp said: "how can we consciously make a decision to give employees hired no more than 4 years after their counterparts 41% less benefits simply because of their date of hire? Somehow to me, that's quite absurd."

They have done it every time a Tier changes.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 02:48 PM
 
Location: New Jersey!!!!
19,078 posts, read 14,021,445 times
Reputation: 21567
I never understood the concept of the "unborn". No one is owed these jobs. If they don't like the package offered at the time of hire, they don't have to take the job. Even if all of these changes passed, most state/city/municipality jobs in NYS will be highly competitive as far as pay and benefits go.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 05:11 PM
 
Location: Long Island
57,410 posts, read 26,339,824 times
Reputation: 15709
I could understand some unrest if they changed the ground rules for those already hired, but why is that an issue for people that have not accepted a position. Like the poster above indicated, if you don't like the pension system then don't take the position.

There are some very good proposals like removing overtime from pension increases that are long overdue, why not put these in place now if they makes sense. The same argument could have been made when they went from Tier 2 to 3, why worry about 2012 in the 1980's.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-29-2012, 05:37 PM
 
3,955 posts, read 5,089,392 times
Reputation: 4185
Quote:
Originally Posted by BuffaloTransplant View Post
For the record, for those who don't know:
Tier I went to June 30, 1973
Tier II went from July 1, 1973 to July 30, 1976.

Most of the state worked for and still works for LESS in salary than those south of Westchester Co. make in pensions. You let people raise the salaries, you are living with the results.

WithDisp said: "how can we consciously make a decision to give employees hired no more than 4 years after their counterparts 41% less benefits simply because of their date of hire? Somehow to me, that's quite absurd."

They have done it every time a Tier changes.
The differences in these tiers have never, ever, been so radical.

Tier 1 & Tier 2 are roughly the same in years put in vs. payout.
As time went on some sensible reforms are put in- largely because of the management of the growing systems.


I am not questioning the validity of some points of Tier 6, however this is a huge huge difference- akin to say lowering the minimum wage tomorrow back to 4.15 an hour, but allowing those before to all be grandfathered in.

You're creating a huge class difference over date of hire- nothing more to it than that. Another attempt of the Boomer and pre-Boomer generation to push excessive costs to the younger working class while supporting their retirements.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 01-30-2012, 07:15 AM
 
Location: Long Island
57,410 posts, read 26,339,824 times
Reputation: 15709
Quote:
Originally Posted by WithDisp View Post
The differences in these tiers have never, ever, been so radical.

Tier 1 & Tier 2 are roughly the same in years put in vs. payout.
As time went on some sensible reforms are put in- largely because of the management of the growing systems.


I am not questioning the validity of some points of Tier 6, however this is a huge huge difference- akin to say lowering the minimum wage tomorrow back to 4.15 an hour, but allowing those before to all be grandfathered in.

You're creating a huge class difference over date of hire- nothing more to it than that. Another attempt of the Boomer and pre-Boomer generation to push excessive costs to the younger working class while supporting their retirements.
There was also a huge difference between some of the prior Tiers, most employees did not even have to contribute to their retirement up until Tier 3 in 2009. This is a common sense approiach, if you can't afford spomething then you cut costs, it is not unreasonable to ask employees to make a significant donation to their own retirement. Companies change their retirement systems all the time, the federal government even went to a defined contribution plan 30 years ago, much more drastic.


This reform makes a lot of sense, if the people coming into the workforce don't like the pension plan coming in they have a choice.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
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.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:




Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > U.S. Forums > New York
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top