RI going bankrupt due to public union employee benefits

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by workingclasshero

but mostly it was the PEOPLE that wanted that

the 80's- and 90's had the YUPPIES..they were UPWARDLY MOBILE, and didnt want to be anchored down with a pension, they wanted the bennie of a pension(savings plan) (kind of like the old christmas funds) that was MOBILE...wah-la..the 401k

It was a boon to corporations as well as they got out of the pension business. It was easier to just toss some money to a 401K then to worry about inflation and COL adjustments to pensions that were eating up their balance sheets.

If you look at the balance sheets of these big corporations their pension funding requirements have shrunk quite a bit which frees up money for them to reinvest in the company.

[Quick Enough]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

It was a boon to corporations as well as they got out of the pension business. It was easier to just toss some money to a 401K then to worry about inflation and COL adjustments to pensions that were eating up their balance sheets.

If you look at the balance sheets of these big corporations their pension funding requirements have shrunk quite a bit which frees up money for them to reinvest in the company.

Please stay on topic. This NOT about corporations. This is about municipalities cow towing to union demands and making promises they can't deliver.

I don't blame the unions for asking, I blame the politicians for caving in.

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by Quick Enough

Please stay on topic. This NOT about corporations. This is about municipalities cow towing to union demands and making promises they can't deliver.

I don't blame the unions for asking, I blame the politicians for caving in.

Sorry..you're right. Went off on a tangent with another poster.

If the town is poor then they will have no other choice but to run out of money like that other town did.

[sterpetron]

Originally Posted by ovcatto

Yes it is insane, just as blaming the union for negotiating a contract when folks didn't think or could possibly forsee that they would be faced with the economic crisis that many cities now face.

And you feel the union leadership is entirely blameless, like freaking Bambi, for taking advantage of their fellow citizens in a process they know was rigged?

Ah, we aren't talking about porches, we are talking about professional firefighters who I am sure at the time negotiated their contract based upon prevailing wages in other similar locals.

That is the whole point, this city is NOT like other major cities, it is very poor with a median home selling for $130,000...

Now which is it, a gravy train or never a gravy train? Of course in the NYT story that you reference too it also points out that the city could have opted into the state wide pension fund but instead opted to operate its own. Is that also the union's fault? Is it the union's fault that the state legislature opted out fire and police of the state limits on collective bargaining, is it the unions fault that the state allowed arbitration based upon national prevailing wages and not local? Please to explain all of this in a tab bit more instructive manner rather than the sophistic "its the union's fault".

The union does share significant blame, as the fundamental relationship between politicians and public unions is by definition, unacceptable - and I might happily add, is being eliminated nationwide.

Allowing public unions to offer votes for higher pensions and benefits is entirely corrupt, why far left liberals seem to only be able to see corporate corruption - but none in this situations, is astounding, and entirely hypocritical.

[sterpetron]

Originally Posted by HappyTexan

Sorry..you're right. Went off on a tangent with another poster.

If the town is poor then they will have no other choice but to run out of money like that other town did.

The problem with that is if I were living in RI outside that city I'd be furious, because as in the case of the other thread this issue came up in (Illinois IIRC), the state is responsible for picking up the pieces.

This means that if this city declares bankruptcy, RI will have to bail out the pensions, so even if you had nothing to do with the benefit negotiations - as in you couldn't vote because you lived outside the city - you are still obligated to have to pay for the profligate pensions et al.

Talk about taxation without any representation...

[HappyTexan]

Originally Posted by sterpetron

The problem with that is if I were living in RI outside that city I'd be furious, because as in the case of the other thread this issue came up in (Illinois IIRC), the state is responsible for picking up the pieces.

This means that if this city declares bankruptcy, RI will have to bail out the pensions, so even if you had nothing to do with the benefit negotiations - as in you couldn't vote because you lived outside the city - you are still obligated to have to pay for the profligate pensions et al.

Talk about taxation without any representation...

Actually no. Prichard, Alabama..the first town to stop paying pensions.

Alabama Town

They have still not received any pensions:
The pension crisis: Promises unkept - CBS News