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.
Well, I have to say the perks are way out of alignment with the private sector... I don't think its fair that taxpayers get raped by government employees...
In olden days (when I was starting a career) public sector jobs paid significantly less than private sector jobs. The balance was the excellent perks. So I have some sympathy for long-time public sector employees who now have seriously good perks - they've earned 'em.
Entities who try to mess with contractual obligations need to be reminded that "washed-up elderly has-beens" still vote.
From what I understand it did not matter how long you worked and you were given free health care for you and one dependent for LIFE. That is absurd. I worked for the federal government for 30 years and I have health care that I pay for every month - and it is not cheap. What a joke and what a rip off to the others who did not work for the state/city government.
Put them under Obamacare - they are the ones who voted for the joker in office so let them suffer the consequences - good and bad.
Other states will be looking at this too so I think all retirees should be prepared. Anyway, they probably make a good retirement salary so can afford to pay for health insurance.
Frankly, I think what is happening in San Jose will happen elsewhere, and very soon.
Expanding the deductible to $1,500, and co-pay to $40 was a significant change, but I suspect this won't be so out of the norm for many public retiree healthcare plans. It still is a fully paid plan, so the only retiree cost are the deductible and co-pay.
Changing health care and eliminating or capping COLA are some of the easiest reforms to do. They don't have the same legal protections pensions do and state and locals are already doing. In fact since this is a local benefit do state employees in Calif get the same benefit? Do teachers?
From what I understand it did not matter how long you worked and you were given free health care for you and one dependent for LIFE. That is absurd. I worked for the federal government for 30 years and I have health care that I pay for every month - and it is not cheap. What a joke and what a rip off to the others who did not work for the state/city government.
Put them under Obamacare - they are the ones who voted for the joker in office so let them suffer the consequences - good and bad.
Other states will be looking at this too so I think all retirees should be prepared. Anyway, they probably make a good retirement salary so can afford to pay for health insurance.
Benefits vary from state-to-state as well as differences between counties and municipalities. I am not aware of any entity that doesn't require vesting periods/certain ages for retirement benefits and for healthcare coverage. Except for safety employees (police and fire - way out of line in some places), pensions are generally not munificent. But it's the outrageous ones that get all the press. If it bleeds it leads!
From what I understand it did not matter how long you worked and you were given free health care for you and one dependent for LIFE. That is absurd. I worked for the federal government for 30 years and I have health care that I pay for every month - and it is not cheap. What a joke and what a rip off to the others who did not work for the state/city government.
Put them under Obamacare - they are the ones who voted for the joker in office so let them suffer the consequences - good and bad.
Other states will be looking at this too so I think all retirees should be prepared. Anyway, they probably make a good retirement salary so can afford to pay for health insurance.
Read the area at the bottom of the article it will provide you with clarification.
All of this is not as simple as some folks would have it be. There are employee contributions and the ROI from their direct contributions. My understanding is that many public employees in California don't contribute to SS nor do their employers contribute their half. Thus that is an obligation the local governments didn't have. Now if you take away pensions and didn't allow folks to contribute to SS they now have? So now they are on public assistance, I think I understand.
Changing health care and eliminating or capping COLA are some of the easiest reforms to do. They don't have the same legal protections pensions do and state and locals are already doing. In fact since this is a local benefit do state employees in Calif get the same benefit? Do teachers?
Uh, it's generally pensions that have COLAs, not other benefits.
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.
