<< <i>For the record, I have no retirement unless I pay 100% of it, and all I'll receive is how much it's worth when I retire. No guarantees. >>
The whole public pension debacle/debate really boils down to one issue, the last word in your post - "guarantees." It's the guarantee that is being forced on the taxpayers in the case of faltering public pension funds.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>For the record, I have no retirement unless I pay 100% of it, and all I'll receive is how much it's worth when I retire. No guarantees. >>
The whole public pension debacle/debate really boils down to one issue, the last word in your post - "guarantees." It's the guarantee that is being forced on the taxpayers in the case of faltering public pension funds. >>
12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice! >>
I didn't make the guarantee, take it up with whoever did. That same politician is probably the one who promised me he wouldn't raise my taxes. Looks like he lied to both of us. But, instead of us taking it out on each other, lets take it out on him. See ya at the poll.
What happens if you can no longer afford to pay your mortgage as "promised?" Do you break the promise and default on the loan or do you expect the bank to take a little more from all the other customers so you can keep living in the house.
The problem with public employee unions is that they can deliver a large block of votes to whomever promises them the most. Guess what, they have run out of most. Public employee wages and benefits should be comparable to the private sector. Politicians should not be able to bargain with them to get votes. The only advantage to public service should be job security. When I see school teachers on TV complaining that $72K a year isn't enough for nine months work it helps me to understand why our kids are not getting a good education.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice! >>
I didn't make the guarantee, take it up with whoever did. That same politician is probably the one who promised me he wouldn't raise my taxes. Looks like he lied to both of us. But, instead of us taking it out on each other, lets take it out on him. See ya at the poll. >>
Elected officials are the ONLY ones who can pass ANY pension legislation. Im sure you understand that, you are a smart man. Firefighters, cops, teachers.....none of them sign any pension legislation into law.....politicians do. Politicians are elected by citizens.....tax payers...you and me. WE....not just you....not just me....but WE as a society have "agreed" to the current structure of public sector pension plans. Derry, when one goes to vote at the polls, we dont vote on line items, we vote for people. I could easily list about $1 trillion worth of federal spending that I think can be chopped, just as you think pensions should be chopped. I have 3 choices though in reality. I can simply leave this nation, I can just accept that there are certain expenditures that will be made against MY personal beliefs, or I can voice my discontent at the polls.
Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations.
Regardless of what the reasons are, or who is to blame, we come to the ultimate and undeniable conclusion that the system....in its current form.....is broken. Reform needs to be made, but not on the backs of those who have held up their end of the deal for a decade or more. New hires, sure. Restructure some existing framework of existing employees....ok, i'll go along with that. But to switch the game completely in midstream is tantamount to theft. My entire investing strategy for the past 12 years has been on the premise, and PROMISE of a defined benefit pension. Had the pension not been promised when I was hired, my portfolio would look VERY different than it does now! At age 36, am I young enough to recover? Probably. But what about the man who has put in 26 years, and is 56 years old? How would he recover from the rug being yanked out?
I agree, it's about public employee benefit reform, including pensions. At the same time I don't think I should pay extra taxes to honor existing promises that my local government cannot keep. Should you be required to help me pay my mortgage because I can no longer afford it? I hold public employee unions responsible for demanding promises that could not be paid for without tax increases.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I agree, it's about public employee benefit reform, including pensions. At the same time I don't think I should pay extra taxes to honor existing promises that my local government cannot keep. Should you be required to help me pay my mortgage because I can no longer afford it? I hold public employee unions responsible for demanding promises that could not be paid for without tax increases. >>
Derry, I pay HUGE amounts of tax dollars to fund everything from enough nukes to fry the entire planet 8 times over, to funding most of the kids at my child's daycare facility, to funding the Illinois LINK (foodstamps) program for 1.8 million people in this state. Alot of my money goes towards paying for section 8 housing, "free" clinics, and a myriad of other social services that I get ZERO benefit from.
I dont like paying taxes anymore than you or the next guy. But if I wish to continue living where I live, I must pay them. But Derry, nobody forces me to pay higher taxes. The last time I checked, its still perfectly legal to move myself and my family to another part of the world where the tax burden isnt so high. Uganda or Haiti perhaps? Its simply a matter of pay to play on a grand scale. I want roads, garbage removal, safe and reliable drinking water, cops when I need them, firefighters to show up in my darkest moments, knowing that an ambulance is just 4 minutes away when my kid gets run over by a car while playing. These benefits warrant a "higher" tax than i'd be paying somewhere else.
So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand?
<< <i>So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand? >>
That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand? >>
That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check. >>
What makes them any different than me? I provide a valuable service for your tax dollars. Those on public aid provide nothing but burden. Thats the difference.
<< <i>Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations. >>
Very detailed and accurate discription of some of the internal problems of big city pension systems that will probably glaze the eyes of most readers. Their minds are gererally made up and they don't want hear it.
My guess is your Chicago, maybe NYC (definitely not Detroit) and Fire
<< <i>Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations. >>
Very detailed and accurate discription of some of the internal problems of big city pension systems that will probably glaze the eyes of most readers. Their minds are gererally made up and they don't want hear it.
My guess is your Chicago, maybe NYC (definitely not Detroit) and Fire >>
12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race.
And what, exactly is your guarantee - in terms of annual benefits when you retire?
What makes them any different than me? I provide a valuable service for your tax dollars. Those on public aid provide nothing but burden. Thats the difference.
And everything is subject to review. Nobody said you didn't do a great job or provide a valuable service. Can the city afford you? My customers ask that about me every day. Why should you be exempt from that kind of reality?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
The same politicians that are in bed with the government employee unions? The same politicians that run the Chicago machine that is anything BUT legit? There hasn't been an honest vote count in Illinois for over 50 years. And you surely are aware of that.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
The same politicians that are in bed with the government employee unions? The same politicians that run the Chicago machine that is anything BUT legit? There hasn't been an honest vote count in Illinois for over 50 years. And you surely are aware of that. >>
In bed with? You are joking, right? April fool's day was Friday. EVERY MAJOR LABOR UNION in this city publicly endorsed Gery Chico for the recent mayoral election. Rahm still won by more than 2-1 votes. You are either very misinformed, are playing a belated April fool's joke, or are just simply crazy to think that unions have any political pull anymore. Stop living in the past, unions hold almost zero political influence anymore.
Good old Rahm wasn't even eligible. You don't have a problem with that?
Chicago machine. Vote counts. Eligibility requirements. Start figuring this one out. Somebody gets hurt with this stuff. True? Not True?
This is getting very interesting, because if you think that Rahm should be Chicago's mayor, it illustrates my point - "as long as I get the goodies, I really don't care who gets run over in the process."
True? Not True?
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
Good old Rahm wasn't even eligible. You don't have a problem with that?
Chicago machine. Vote counts. Eligibility requirements. Start figuring this one out. Somebody gets hurt with this stuff. True? Not True?
This is getting very interesting, because if you think that Rahm should be Chicago's mayor, it illustrates my point - "as long as I get the goodies, I really don't care who gets run over in the process."
True? Not True? >>
Clearly and undeniably Rahm was NOT eligible for placement on the ballot. He should not be the mayor. However, he is the new mayor elect DESPITE the fact that every major labor union in Chicago endorsed the other guy. That simply reinforces my point that public sector unions have very little to no political influence anymore. The fallacy is that somehow public sector unions are in bed with the same politicians cutting them deals and pushing for increased benefits. Thats just a fallacy.....something that makes the non-public sector worker have comfort in saying things like you said above......"they are all in bed together". Its simply BS.
All public sector unions in this country need to be restricted in what they can negotiate. When they negotiate with POLS, no one is representing the people in this country who GENERATE revenue as opposed to those who provide 'services' with not much consideration as to what it costs. To negotiate certain working conditions seems fair but only those conditions that would affect a persons workplace. Not the money portion of the contract.
Let me give you some situations that I am aware of.
Top 10 retirees in San Diego County last year represent over a $60 million liability for the local and state pension fund. Incredible and only the tip of the iceberg.
CAL prison workers get 'walk time'. That's the time from where they park their car til they enter through the gates. Well, in order to shorten that time, the powers that be, removed the need to use metal detectors...to speed up the entrance.....AND the guards decided a neat thing to do was use this opportunity to smuggle cell phones at a rate that over 10,000 were confiscated last year. At $500-1000 apiece, that sure increases the take home pay--doesn't it. Is it so hard to understand why the prison guards have been so silent in this last two years CAL budget problems? Smuggling cell phones to shot callers? Yeah baby. Take home an extra 5k a month--who needs a wage contract?
City of San Carlos, middle class city in the Bay Area. Average police officer costs the city over $170,000 in wages and benefits. Outrageous. One third of city employees earn over $100,000 per year PLUS benefits.
Since 1999, CAL employees have been allowed to manipulate their last years salary by throwing in everything into that base for their retirement calcs. Comp time, unused sick pay, unused vacation pay, overtime pay. True manipulation of the system, engineered by then Gov Davis and the unions--all dems and all non income generators. Just money takers.
I have quite a few relatives in my family that are or have been school teachers and executives for various public entities. From grade school teachers--my sister, to College professors---Two uncles, a top level Federal elected official-my cousin, a head of a major Silicon Valley school district--my aunt, to asst assessor for the county in Silicon Valley--my bro-in-law, to various LEO . The sad part is most of them have no clue as to what it takes to put on a thinking cap and TRY to GENERATE income. They just roll along and TAKE money and in some cases they seem to hold INCOME PRODUCERS in contempt. None seem to have any concept of the need to generate money in an economy. But they all live well at the public trough.
<< <i>That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check. >>
Look at this ... common ground. I agree with you.
I am relunctantly going to ask. Your local gov wants to raise your income tax to prop up local gov pensions?
The remidie for that is recievership. I don't know of any municipal pensions system that are in that type of trouble. Maybe some very small cities such as Highland Park, Hamtramck, Gary IN. ect. That type of action, recievership, would very little immediate impact if any, on current retirees. Even long term negitive effects on current retirees are questionable. Younger workers such as Gecko may take a hit depending on what the conditions are to allow the municipality to come out of recievership.
<<The remidie for that is recievership. I don't know of any municipal pensions system that are in that type of trouble. Maybe some very small cities such as Highland Park, Hamtramck, Gary IN. ect. That type of action, recievership, would very little immediate impact if any, on current retirees. Even long term negitive effects on current retirees are questionable. Younger workers such as Gecko may take a hit depending on what the conditions are to allow the municipality to come out of recievership. >>
Millions of people in San DIEGO city and county. Millions in L.A. Those aren't peanuts.
The entire CALPERS system is underfunded by at least HALF A TRILLION. That would represent about HALF of what the USA has borrowed from China. And those numbers are not audited and are put out by those agencies that have a vested interest in shading the truth. CAL can't go chapter Nine.
If anybody thinks the USA will recover from this recession if CAL doesn't...think again. Texas is good but it can't bail the entire county out of this abyss.
<< <i>Millions of people in San DIEGO city and county. Millions in L.A. Those aren't peanuts.
The entire CALPERS system is underfunded by at least HALF A TRILLION. That would represent about HALF of what the USA has borrowed from China. And those numbers are not audited and are put out by those agencies that have a vested interest in shading the truth. CAL can't go chapter Nine.
If anybody thinks the USA will recover from this recession if CAL doesn't...think again. Texas is good but it can't bail the entire county out of this abyss. >>
I should have added Cal to the list of exceptions. Your observations are noted and I agree we are in an abyss.
derryb, jmski....Im interested in doing a lateral transfer to C.F.D. Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? Also, I have a Bachelors degree, do they have tiers of compensation for education or is it based on longevity? I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance.
<< <i>derryb, jmski....Im interested in doing a lateral transfer to C.F.D. Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? Also, I have a Bachelors degree, do they have tiers of compensation for education or is it based on longevity? I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance. >>
Downtown1974,
If you want to know anything about Phil's income or personal data, he's posted just about all of it here and other internet sites over and over and over and over . It's not hard to find. regards
Some folks think they know every thing around here, some like to argue about every thing around here, I myself have opinions and like to argue a little, & passers by think we are all NUT's!
I hope we all agree my freedom ends where yours begins! Our Constitution & Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable.
<< <i>Some folks think they know every thing around here, some like to argue about every thing around here, I myself have opinions and like to argue a little, & passers by think we are all NUT's!
I hope we all agree my freedom ends where yours begins! Our Constitution & Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable. >>
the Crux of a lot of this (and there are many nails being hit on many heads in whats written) is the concept of The Deal
Square deal, fair deal, new deal, newer deal, a lot of the "debt" and "entitlement" and "welfare" issues comes down to
Collectivism in negotiating Deals, and
Charity toward those Less Fortunate,
and what starts as good intentioned ends up evolving into such a byzantine structure that it must be reformed or abolished
and society struggles with how this is done, either suddenly (usually bad but quick) or gradually (less acute but grinding)
it seems fair to honor deals made in the past (while limiting corruption and gaming the system as much as possible) and be very careful in making new ones where the payout is more than the pay-in
(as I think most have to admit is true of most pensions and social security, when folks are living to their 90's and 100's and consuming very expensive treatments in the process, oftentimes)
I'm still betting and voting on reform vs revolution in the USA, and will keep checking bread prices along with gasoline, the fast food standard meals (sandwich, fries, drink) , 6 packs of decent beer, a pound of ground round, all of which are under $10 as I write this, lots of folks are predicting wheelbarrows of FDRs for the grocery store, no doubt prices are moving, but those things were maybe half what they cost now when I was a kid 30 years ago, I'd wager in 30 years they will be maybe as much as triple, but not dozens or hundreds of times cost.
I guess I just dont understand where a few people are coming from. You could make drastic budget cuts to teachers, fire, cops and dpw workers, but your taxes certainly arent going to go down. To think they will even remain at staus quo is a pipe dream. So you guys are OK with having longer response times to burglary calls? Eh...whats an extra 5 or 10 minutes for the ambulance to get here? House fire?....well the station closest to your house had to be closed due to budget constraints, but it shouldnt take too long for Ladder 3 to come from the other side of town. I wonder what will happen to your home owners insurance policy once they get wind that your police and fire departments have been drastically reduced? Oh..BTW, your child has a few more kids to interact with now. Due to budget constraints we have increased the number of students in your childs class from 18 to 27.
Sounds like a great idea folks.
They WILL find another way to justify your increasing tax bills.
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101. >>
Let's take a deep breath here men.. As I see it, let's look at the facts..... 1) Taxpayer is BROKE. Taxpayer must fund their own pension,insurance etc. and fund the public sector 2) State and local govern. is Broke. 3) Federal Govern. is Broke 4) Collective bargaining with public sector is corrupt. 5) Now the taxpayer has elected politicians to change things and the public unions won't follow new laws, not fair. (Wisconsin)
"Politicians promised pensions, politicians elected by taxpayers." The problem with collective bargaining in public sector is that you pay union dues, which are in turn used to "buy political votes". The public unions are siting accross the table with politicians in their back pocket, thus the politician will promise anything and unfortunately things they really can't deliver.
The private sector says you can bargain for your wages, fine. But the pensions and insurance can not be bargained and public sector must pay more for this.
I own a small company, after taxes, insurance, wages, etc; there is not much left for a pension fund.
Don't take it personally, but the private sector can no longer support pensions/benefits. The teachers, firemen, policemen, government employee must bargain to stop the wastful spending, then more monies can go in everyones pocket, WOW what a concept.
many states have done away with collective bargaining, and we're doing just fine.
SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
When you break it down to engine response time or class size.....that just doesn't get to the heart of the problem.
The problem is partially ABUSE of the system in the larger case. It is just not possible to sustain the public employee benefits as they are at present. For every concession you can name, I can document ABUSE with the amounts far in excess of what you refer to as a concession.
What's the average public sector employee cost in the country? It's an astounding figure. What do they produce? Not a hell of a lot. THEY TAKE money and produce a service that many view is overpriced for what it costs. My perspective is slanted from a CAL view so may not be applicable to your geographic area.
I'm not saying unions or bad or that a LEO doesn't deserve compensation. I'm saying that the rules ---as they are right now---will help BK this country.
I graduated HS in 71. 395/405 of my class went to college. It was expected. Class size was 30-35. Teachers were paid a fair salary. CAL had the BEST school system in the country. Right now, class sizes are smaller, CAL teachers are the highest paid or closest to it in the country, CAL has the lowest or close to the lowest rated schools in the country.
Do you see the lack of logic in your arguement. MONEY and CLASS size has no direct correlation to performance. Last teacher in, first fired in a cost cutting mode. This needs to be flipped. I think you'll find that in many countries...class size has no effect on performance. I do not believe that any class size has to be 23-29 unless it is for under performing or handicaped students. My freshman chemistry class in college was 1,600 students in the fall of 71. We all made it.
SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy? A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. At the time, the conflict seemed to be that they wanted everyone's money, and everyone didn't want to give it to them. Are they still arguing about the same subject?
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101. >>
Let's take a deep breath here men.. As I see it, let's look at the facts..... 1) Taxpayer is BROKE. Taxpayer must fund their own pension,insurance etc. and fund the public sector 2) State and local govern. is Broke. 3) Federal Govern. is Broke 4) Collective bargaining with public sector is corrupt. 5) Now the taxpayer has elected politicians to change things and the public unions won't follow new laws, not fair. (Wisconsin)
"Politicians promised pensions, politicians elected by taxpayers." The problem with collective bargaining in public sector is that you pay union dues, which are in turn used to "buy political votes". The public unions are siting accross the table with politicians in their back pocket, thus the politician will promise anything and unfortunately things they really can't deliver.
The private sector says you can bargain for your wages, fine. But the pensions and insurance can not be bargained and public sector must pay more for this.
I own a small company, after taxes, insurance, wages, etc; there is not much left for a pension fund.
Don't take it personally, but the private sector can no longer support pensions/benefits. The teachers, firemen, policemen, government employee must bargain to stop the wastful spending, then more monies can go in everyones pocket, WOW what a concept.
many states have done away with collective bargaining, and we're doing just fine.
SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
>>
Are you saying that all current and existing pension obligations be defaulted on immediately? Do you feel the same about Social Security? Do you feel the same about welfare? If you propose to end ALL government sponsored payments......across the board......sign me up! Or is it JUST public sector pensions that you want to ax?
<< <i>SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy? A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. Are there still? >>
Same question to you Baley: Are you for the immediate discontinuation of Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, public pensions, and any other government funded payouts to anyone? If so, lets do it! Pay me simply a fair wage, i'll take care of the rest. But dont you dare send out another single Social Security check, or make another single Medicaid payment, or send out another single foodstamp. If you guys want reform, its gotta hit EVERYONE....not just your neighborhood cop or fireman or teacher. Deal?
I'm not in the position to make "deals" with anyone. We all gives what we has to, and takes what we can, and we sleep our own dreams and have to look ourselves in the mirror in the morning.
I will say this: I don't plan on needing Social Security, I don't have a pension, I'm prepared to pay my way as well as taxes for others... to a point. If it gets excessive, I'm moving, but for now I accept the system and am not hypocritical. The one time I took "disability" for when my first kid was born, I didn't like the taste of the gov't entitlement check. When my second was born, I didn't file for the state insurance check, just took leave without pay and spent earned savings.
If I could/can afford to do so, I will decline social security when the time comes. I do not expect others to do so, and I certainly don't expect the abolition of any or all collective entitlement welfare systems that so many are on.
Edited to add: And if I needed the public assistance, I would be damned glad it was there, and that I was paying into it all the time. The problem is not so much use of the systems, but abuse of them.
<< <i>SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy? A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. At the time, the conflict seemed to be that they wanted everyone's money, and everyone didn't want to give it to them. Are they still arguing about the same subject? >>
They are pretty quite these days trying to cook the books. The senior execs pulled down over $500,000 a year the last few years. A little embarrassing ---the incompetence of their management skills is difficult to comprehend.
case in point: they got themselves into this leveraged land deal at the peak of the residential market. Anybody with a medium term perspective knows that RE slows, levels or declines periodically. It looks like very little risk assessment was done.
About $300 million "investment" . They bite on the deal on an all cash basis. They put 20% down ---thinking if that's how a homeowner can make money in RE...well what the hey---so can we. So they round up an 80% secured investor....if memory serves...it was the Rhode Island Pension fund...for the 80% First secured position.----AND give the RI fund a 100% guarantee on the +/- $ 240 million. Well CALPERS walked and the property crash dived. RI said..."give us our $240 million". Three Guesses who pays. First two guesses do not count. Criminal mismanagement. CALPERS is at least 500 billion underfunded and is heading south as you read this.
<< <i> Are you saying that all current and existing pension obligations be defaulted on immediately? Do you feel the same about Social Security? Do you feel the same about welfare? If you propose to end ALL government sponsored payments......across the board......sign me up! Or is it JUST public sector pensions that you want to ax? >>
I'm saying when the money runs out, so do the promises. Part of the problem is mismanaged pension funds. Part of it is greedy Walls St. crooks that took criminal advantage of the pension funds. Part of the problem is politicians buying votes with promises of glorified benefits. Part of the problem is greedy public union administrators just doing what they get paid to do. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be the solution to the problem.
I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars. Private employee bargaining is a completely different matter since the members are subject to competition: "You want a 75% salaray increase? Sorry bud the guy in Korea will do it for much less."
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars. >>
Did you come up with that thought by yourself or did the mass media echo chamber play a part in that process?
In one of my past professions my boss said "Go over and see if you can help Tom with his job, hes stuck and needs help". After a short review I said, Tommy why don't you do this and that. Hes reply Quote ... "I didn't have that idea, but I think I'm gona"
They all seem to think that taxes are too low and vote the ticket. Maybe even FULD from Lehman Bros. Heck GE has a couple of bucks due to creative accounting. GE=NBC=media support of present govt expansion=no taxes=
<< <i> I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars.
Did you come up with that thought by yourself or did the mass media echo chamber play a part in that process? >>
If you can't contribute to the discussion without personal attacks, go back to the baseball card forum and leave the adults to have their debate.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
....Im interested in doing a lateral transfer to C.F.D. Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? Also, I have a Bachelors degree, do they have tiers of compensation for education or is it based on longevity? I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance.
DT1974, I suggested that if someone wanted to stand up to the scrutiny, he could offer up exactly what his retirement benefit payout will be in comparison to the amount he contributed. I think that would be reasonable, don't you? And if it is in the same ballpark as every other working stiff in terms of payout vs. paid-in, I'd be all fine & dandy with that.
I never suggested that I knew anything about his contract, so please, please try to be accurate. I did suggest that his benefits should be proportional to what other private wage earners might expect. I'd even allow for combat pay, but not in perpetuity - only for those years he was actually on the line.
I love it when people start flinging around labels such as "extreme" when it gores their own ox, but they have no problem with uping taxes on non-government employees and small businesses as if it's a non-event.
And Gecko, the Teamsters supported Emanuel FYI. I'm still trying to see who SEIU and the Teachers' Union supported, since it doesn't seem to have been widely reported. But since our argument involved only government union employees, I'd say that as far as Chicago is concerned, you may be correct in this one instance, but NOT historically. And that would still depend on which way the Teacher's Union went with their endorsement for mayor.
The point about collective bargaining for government employees is that when they are allowed to "collectively bargain", they are in a position to threaten a shutdown if they don't get their way, because there is no competition. That's just wrong. It's that simple. The proof is in exactly what we are seeing play out with state and city budgets in those states where public employee collective bargaining has been the norm. That is the proof. Period.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>If you can't contribute to the discussion without personal attacks, go back to the baseball card forum and leave the adults to have their debate. >>
The question does have a bit of an edge to it. Apologies
<< <i> I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. >>
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source.
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining!
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions.
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source. >>
Point well made. However it is an idea that I as a free market capitalist support. Those that support organized labor (and I am one) need to realize that there is a big diffence between public employee bargaining power and private sector bargaining power. An attack on the public unions that have helped pushed our state, county and local governments to the edge of bankruptcy is not necessarily an attack on non-public workers who have controls such as competition keeping their demands in check. Public union demands are a primary reason why many governments choose to outsource public services to private sector contractors.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!!
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
And are these manning levels realistic, or are they over inflated just to keep union members on the clock? Has your union really convinced you that the city could care less about the safety of the workers? Why would you even want to work for such an employer, especially in such a dangerous profession?
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
I'm not trying to choose sides but am I the only one who thinks that some of the pro govt union arguements are a little self serving, lack points & authorities and just try to change the subject?
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
<< I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. >>
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source.
I'd like to know what's reckless about it. The taxpayers have no on-the-spot collective bargaining power, and public employee unions shouldn't be allowed that kind of power either.
The teachers in Wisconsin should have been given disciplinary warnings and their pay should have been docked for every day they left work to protest. They have every right to protest in ways consistant with their consciences, but they also violated their public trust and should not be rewarded for that with taxpayer monies.
Q: Are You Printing Money? Bernanke: Not Literally
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
And are these manning levels realistic, or are they over inflated just to keep union members on the clock? Has your union really convinced you that the city could care less about the safety of the workers? Why would you even want to work for such an employer? >>
I don't want to go into long stories. I've been in Gecko's shoes. The city I worked for when I hired on to their F.D. had a city wide manpower base of over 1200. Lots of fat and extras. Today city wide manpower is in the area of 530 and going down. The city could care less about a fire fighter safety. Underman rigs are unsafe to the lone donkey (firefighter) riding the back end. Nothing to do with keeping a union member on the clock. Those days are long LONG gone.
<< <i>I'm not trying to choose sides but am I the only one who thinks that some of the pro govt union arguements are a little self serving, lack points & authorities and just try to change the subject?
>>
I suspect many of the pro govt union voices would feel differently if it did not have a direct impact on them. Most everybody wants to not raise taxes, unless of course, it affects them. In their shoes, I would feel the same.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
Comments
<< <i>For the record, I have no retirement unless I pay 100% of it, and all I'll receive is how much it's worth when I retire. No guarantees. >>
The whole public pension debacle/debate really boils down to one issue, the last word in your post - "guarantees." It's the guarantee that is being forced on the taxpayers in the case of faltering public pension funds.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
<< <i>For the record, I have no retirement unless I pay 100% of it, and all I'll receive is how much it's worth when I retire. No guarantees. >>
The whole public pension debacle/debate really boils down to one issue, the last word in your post - "guarantees." It's the guarantee that is being forced on the taxpayers in the case of faltering public pension funds. >>
12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice! >>
I didn't make the guarantee, take it up with whoever did. That same politician is probably the one who promised me he wouldn't raise my taxes. Looks like he lied to both of us. But, instead of us taking it out on each other, lets take it out on him. See ya at the poll.
What happens if you can no longer afford to pay your mortgage as "promised?" Do you break the promise and default on the loan or do you expect the bank to take a little more from all the other customers so you can keep living in the house.
The problem with public employee unions is that they can deliver a large block of votes to whomever promises them the most. Guess what, they have run out of most. Public employee wages and benefits should be comparable to the private sector. Politicians should not be able to bargain with them to get votes. The only advantage to public service should be job security. When I see school teachers on TV complaining that $72K a year isn't enough for nine months work it helps me to understand why our kids are not getting a good education.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice! >>
I didn't make the guarantee, take it up with whoever did. That same politician is probably the one who promised me he wouldn't raise my taxes. Looks like he lied to both of us. But, instead of us taking it out on each other, lets take it out on him. See ya at the poll.
Elected officials are the ONLY ones who can pass ANY pension legislation. Im sure you understand that, you are a smart man. Firefighters, cops, teachers.....none of them sign any pension legislation into law.....politicians do. Politicians are elected by citizens.....tax payers...you and me. WE....not just you....not just me....but WE as a society have "agreed" to the current structure of public sector pension plans. Derry, when one goes to vote at the polls, we dont vote on line items, we vote for people. I could easily list about $1 trillion worth of federal spending that I think can be chopped, just as you think pensions should be chopped. I have 3 choices though in reality. I can simply leave this nation, I can just accept that there are certain expenditures that will be made against MY personal beliefs, or I can voice my discontent at the polls.
Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations.
Regardless of what the reasons are, or who is to blame, we come to the ultimate and undeniable conclusion that the system....in its current form.....is broken. Reform needs to be made, but not on the backs of those who have held up their end of the deal for a decade or more. New hires, sure. Restructure some existing framework of existing employees....ok, i'll go along with that. But to switch the game completely in midstream is tantamount to theft. My entire investing strategy for the past 12 years has been on the premise, and PROMISE of a defined benefit pension. Had the pension not been promised when I was hired, my portfolio would look VERY different than it does now! At age 36, am I young enough to recover? Probably. But what about the man who has put in 26 years, and is 56 years old? How would he recover from the rug being yanked out?
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I agree, it's about public employee benefit reform, including pensions. At the same time I don't think I should pay extra taxes to honor existing promises that my local government cannot keep. Should you be required to help me pay my mortgage because I can no longer afford it? I hold public employee unions responsible for demanding promises that could not be paid for without tax increases. >>
Derry, I pay HUGE amounts of tax dollars to fund everything from enough nukes to fry the entire planet 8 times over, to funding most of the kids at my child's daycare facility, to funding the Illinois LINK (foodstamps) program for 1.8 million people in this state. Alot of my money goes towards paying for section 8 housing, "free" clinics, and a myriad of other social services that I get ZERO benefit from.
I dont like paying taxes anymore than you or the next guy. But if I wish to continue living where I live, I must pay them. But Derry, nobody forces me to pay higher taxes. The last time I checked, its still perfectly legal to move myself and my family to another part of the world where the tax burden isnt so high. Uganda or Haiti perhaps? Its simply a matter of pay to play on a grand scale. I want roads, garbage removal, safe and reliable drinking water, cops when I need them, firefighters to show up in my darkest moments, knowing that an ambulance is just 4 minutes away when my kid gets run over by a car while playing. These benefits warrant a "higher" tax than i'd be paying somewhere else.
So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand?
<< <i>So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand? >>
That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
<< <i>So with 43,000,000 Americans currently eating on YOUR dollar, you choose to come after a hard working, tax paying firefighter and his modest pension plan? Is that what im to understand? >>
That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check. >>
What makes them any different than me? I provide a valuable service for your tax dollars. Those on public aid provide nothing but burden. Thats the difference.
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations. >>
Very detailed and accurate discription of some of the internal problems of big city pension systems that will probably glaze the eyes of most readers. Their minds are gererally made up and they don't want hear it.
My guess is your Chicago, maybe NYC (definitely not Detroit) and Fire
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Now, regarding the pension system for public workers. You want reform? Excellent! The system is not functioning properly due to 2 major factors. First is the serious downturn in the economy.....pension funds are calculated by actuaries at annual returns of around 8% per year with no variance. That presumption itself is a problem, but again....I didnt calculate those numbers, some $175,000/yr bean counter did. The second major problem is the recent "funding holidays" that almost every state and municipality has taken over the past 10-15 years. Their idea of skipping their end of the contributions in order to fund stainless steel beans, flower pots, and wrought iron fences has left a major gap in funding for those pension obligations. >>
Very detailed and accurate discription of some of the internal problems of big city pension systems that will probably glaze the eyes of most readers. Their minds are gererally made up and they don't want hear it.
My guess is your Chicago, maybe NYC (definitely not Detroit) and Fire >>
Chicago fire....12 years.
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race.
And what, exactly is your guarantee - in terms of annual benefits when you retire?
What makes them any different than me? I provide a valuable service for your tax dollars. Those on public aid provide nothing but burden. Thats the difference.
And everything is subject to review. Nobody said you didn't do a great job or provide a valuable service. Can the city afford you? My customers ask that about me every day. Why should you be exempt from that kind of reality?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
The same politicians that are in bed with the government employee unions? The same politicians that run the Chicago machine that is anything BUT legit? There hasn't been an honest vote count in Illinois for over 50 years. And you surely are aware of that.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
The same politicians that are in bed with the government employee unions? The same politicians that run the Chicago machine that is anything BUT legit? There hasn't been an honest vote count in Illinois for over 50 years. And you surely are aware of that. >>
In bed with? You are joking, right? April fool's day was Friday. EVERY MAJOR LABOR UNION in this city publicly endorsed Gery Chico for the recent mayoral election. Rahm still won by more than 2-1 votes. You are either very misinformed, are playing a belated April fool's joke, or are just simply crazy to think that unions have any political pull anymore. Stop living in the past, unions hold almost zero political influence anymore.
Good old Rahm wasn't even eligible. You don't have a problem with that?
Chicago machine. Vote counts. Eligibility requirements. Start figuring this one out. Somebody gets hurt with this stuff. True? Not True?
This is getting very interesting, because if you think that Rahm should be Chicago's mayor, it illustrates my point - "as long as I get the goodies, I really don't care who gets run over in the process."
True? Not True?
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>And 12 years ago?
Good old Rahm wasn't even eligible. You don't have a problem with that?
Chicago machine. Vote counts. Eligibility requirements. Start figuring this one out. Somebody gets hurt with this stuff. True? Not True?
This is getting very interesting, because if you think that Rahm should be Chicago's mayor, it illustrates my point - "as long as I get the goodies, I really don't care who gets run over in the process."
True? Not True? >>
Clearly and undeniably Rahm was NOT eligible for placement on the ballot. He should not be the mayor. However, he is the new mayor elect DESPITE the fact that every major labor union in Chicago endorsed the other guy. That simply reinforces my point that public sector unions have very little to no political influence anymore. The fallacy is that somehow public sector unions are in bed with the same politicians cutting them deals and pushing for increased benefits. Thats just a fallacy.....something that makes the non-public sector worker have comfort in saying things like you said above......"they are all in bed together". Its simply BS.
Let me give you some situations that I am aware of.
Top 10 retirees in San Diego County last year represent over a $60 million liability for the local and state pension fund. Incredible and only the tip of the iceberg.
CAL prison workers get 'walk time'. That's the time from where they park their car til they enter through the gates. Well, in order to shorten that time, the powers that be, removed the need to use metal detectors...to speed up the entrance.....AND the guards decided a neat thing to do was use this opportunity to smuggle cell phones at a rate that over 10,000 were confiscated last year. At $500-1000 apiece, that sure increases the take home pay--doesn't it. Is it so hard to understand why the prison guards have been so silent in this last two years CAL budget problems? Smuggling cell phones to shot callers? Yeah baby. Take home an extra 5k a month--who needs a wage contract?
City of San Carlos, middle class city in the Bay Area. Average police officer costs the city over $170,000 in wages and benefits. Outrageous.
One third of city employees earn over $100,000 per year PLUS benefits.
Since 1999, CAL employees have been allowed to manipulate their last years salary by throwing in everything into that base for their retirement calcs. Comp time, unused sick pay, unused vacation pay, overtime pay. True manipulation of the system, engineered by then Gov Davis and the unions--all dems and all non income generators. Just money takers.
I have quite a few relatives in my family that are or have been school teachers and executives for various public entities. From grade school teachers--my sister, to College professors---Two uncles, a top level Federal elected official-my cousin, a head of a major Silicon Valley school district--my aunt, to asst assessor for the county in Silicon Valley--my bro-in-law, to various LEO . The sad part is most of them have no clue as to what it takes to put on a thinking cap and TRY to GENERATE income. They just roll along and TAKE money and in some cases they seem to hold INCOME PRODUCERS in contempt. None seem to have any concept of the need to generate money in an economy. But they all live well at the public trough.
<< <i>That's the beauty of their smoke and mirrors - they pit the taxpayer against the public pension recipient.
I choose to go after any attempt to increase my taxes because of broken promises. As a recipient of those taxes you can take that personal if you wish. I will "go after" any attempt to increase my taxes for anything else.
I'm sure you would resist any attempt to increase in your taxes to give to those "other" 43,000,000 people eating on your tax dollar. What makes them any different than you? Funny how everyone is for less taxes as long as it doesn't affect their check. >>
Look at this ... common ground. I agree with you.
I am relunctantly going to ask. Your local gov wants to raise your income tax to prop up local gov pensions?
The remidie for that is recievership. I don't know of any municipal pensions system that are in that type of trouble. Maybe some very small cities such as Highland Park, Hamtramck, Gary IN. ect. That type of action, recievership, would very little immediate impact if any, on current retirees. Even long term negitive effects on current retirees are questionable. Younger workers such as Gecko may take a hit depending on what the conditions are to allow the municipality to come out of recievership.
<<The remidie for that is recievership. I don't know of any municipal pensions system that are in that type of trouble. Maybe some very small cities such as Highland Park, Hamtramck, Gary IN. ect. That type of action, recievership, would very little immediate impact if any, on current retirees. Even long term negitive effects on current retirees are questionable. Younger workers such as Gecko may take a hit depending on what the conditions are to allow the municipality to come out of recievership. >>
Millions of people in San DIEGO city and county. Millions in L.A. Those aren't peanuts.
The entire CALPERS system is underfunded by at least HALF A TRILLION. That would represent about HALF of what the USA has borrowed from China. And those numbers are not audited and are put out by those agencies that have a vested interest in shading the truth. CAL can't go chapter Nine.
If anybody thinks the USA will recover from this recession if CAL doesn't...think again. Texas is good but it can't bail the entire county out of this abyss.
<< <i>Millions of people in San DIEGO city and county. Millions in L.A. Those aren't peanuts.
The entire CALPERS system is underfunded by at least HALF A TRILLION. That would represent about HALF of what the USA has borrowed from China. And those numbers are not audited and are put out by those agencies that have a vested interest in shading the truth. CAL can't go chapter Nine.
If anybody thinks the USA will recover from this recession if CAL doesn't...think again. Texas is good but it can't bail the entire county out of this abyss. >>
I should have added Cal to the list of exceptions. Your observations are noted and I agree we are in an abyss.
I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance.
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
<< <i>derryb, jmski....Im interested in doing a lateral transfer to C.F.D. Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? Also, I have a Bachelors degree, do they have tiers of compensation for education or is it based on longevity?
I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance. >>
Downtown1974,
If you want to know anything about Phil's income or personal data, he's posted just about all of it here and other internet sites over and over and over and over . It's not hard to find.
regards
I hope we all agree my freedom ends where yours begins! Our Constitution & Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable.
<< <i>Some folks think they know every thing around here, some like to argue about every thing around here, I myself have opinions and like to argue a little
I hope we all agree my freedom ends where yours begins! Our Constitution & Bill of Rights are NOT negotiable. >>
Best post of this thread!
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
Square deal, fair deal, new deal, newer deal, a lot of the "debt" and "entitlement" and "welfare" issues comes down to
Collectivism in negotiating Deals, and
Charity toward those Less Fortunate,
and what starts as good intentioned ends up evolving into such a byzantine structure that it must be reformed or abolished
and society struggles with how this is done, either suddenly (usually bad but quick) or gradually (less acute but grinding)
it seems fair to honor deals made in the past (while limiting corruption and gaming the system as much as possible) and be very careful in making new ones where the payout is more than the pay-in
(as I think most have to admit is true of most pensions and social security, when folks are living to their 90's and 100's and consuming very expensive treatments in the process, oftentimes)
I'm still betting and voting on reform vs revolution in the USA, and will keep checking bread prices along with gasoline, the fast food standard meals (sandwich, fries, drink) , 6 packs of decent beer, a pound of ground round, all of which are under $10 as I write this, lots of folks are predicting wheelbarrows of FDRs for the grocery store, no doubt prices are moving, but those things were maybe half what they cost now when I was a kid 30 years ago, I'd wager in 30 years they will be maybe as much as triple, but not dozens or hundreds of times cost.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
I wonder what will happen to your home owners insurance policy once they get wind that your police and fire departments have been drastically reduced?
Oh..BTW, your child has a few more kids to interact with now. Due to budget constraints we have increased the number of students in your childs class from 18 to 27.
Sounds like a great idea folks.
They WILL find another way to justify your increasing tax bills.
MY GOLD TYPE SET https://pcgs.com/setregistry/type-sets/complete-type-sets/gold-type-set-12-piece-circulation-strikes-1839-1933/publishedset/321940
<< <i>
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
Let's take a deep breath here men.. As I see it, let's look at the facts.....
1) Taxpayer is BROKE. Taxpayer must fund their own pension,insurance etc. and fund the public sector
2) State and local govern. is Broke.
3) Federal Govern. is Broke
4) Collective bargaining with public sector is corrupt.
5) Now the taxpayer has elected politicians to change things and the public unions won't follow new laws, not fair. (Wisconsin)
"Politicians promised pensions, politicians elected by taxpayers." The problem with collective bargaining in public sector is that you pay union dues, which are in turn used to "buy political votes". The public unions are siting accross the table with politicians in their back pocket, thus the politician will promise anything and unfortunately things they really can't deliver.
The private sector says you can bargain for your wages, fine. But the pensions and insurance can not be bargained and public sector must pay more for this.
I own a small company, after taxes, insurance, wages, etc; there is not much left for a pension fund.
Don't take it personally, but the private sector can no longer support pensions/benefits. The teachers, firemen, policemen, government employee must bargain to stop the wastful spending, then more monies can go in everyones pocket, WOW what a concept.
many states have done away with collective bargaining, and we're doing just fine.
SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
When you break it down to engine response time or class size.....that just doesn't get to the heart of the problem.
The problem is partially ABUSE of the system in the larger case. It is just not possible to sustain the public employee benefits as they are at present. For every concession you can name, I can document ABUSE with the amounts far in excess of what you refer to as a concession.
What's the average public sector employee cost in the country? It's an astounding figure. What do they produce? Not a hell of a lot. THEY TAKE money and produce a service that many view is overpriced for what it costs.
My perspective is slanted from a CAL view so may not be applicable to your geographic area.
I'm not saying unions or bad or that a LEO doesn't deserve compensation. I'm saying that the rules ---as they are right now---will help BK this country.
I graduated HS in 71. 395/405 of my class went to college. It was expected. Class size was 30-35. Teachers were paid a fair salary. CAL had the BEST school system in the country.
Right now, class sizes are smaller, CAL teachers are the highest paid or closest to it in the country, CAL has the lowest or close to the lowest rated schools in the country.
Do you see the lack of logic in your arguement. MONEY and CLASS size has no direct correlation to performance. Last teacher in, first fired in a cost cutting mode. This needs to be flipped.
I think you'll find that in many countries...class size has no effect on performance. I do not believe that any class size has to be 23-29 unless it is for under performing or handicaped students. My freshman chemistry class in college was 1,600 students in the fall of 71. We all made it.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy?
A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. At the time, the conflict seemed to be that they wanted everyone's money, and everyone didn't want to give it to them. Are they still arguing about the same subject?
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>12 years ago, the city "guaranteed" me a pension plan in return for MY guarantee that i'd risk my own life and health for you, and that I would contribute 9.125% of every paycheck into that fund. I have held up my end of that deal.....now you dont want to hold up your end? Nice!
Ahem, I didn't guarantee you jack. Talk to the city fathers in Chicago. They're all pretty upstanding, law-abiding civil servants. Nothing personal Gecko, but you knew what you were getting into, and if you don't know about Chicago then I guess it's time for someone to tell you. Let's start with the current mayoral race. >>
Once again.....POLITICIANS guaranteed me a pension. Politicians are publicly elected officials put into office by TAX PAYERS. Tax payers then...by extension...have guaranteed me a pension. I cannot be any more clear than that. Its perfect logic 101.
Let's take a deep breath here men.. As I see it, let's look at the facts.....
1) Taxpayer is BROKE. Taxpayer must fund their own pension,insurance etc. and fund the public sector
2) State and local govern. is Broke.
3) Federal Govern. is Broke
4) Collective bargaining with public sector is corrupt.
5) Now the taxpayer has elected politicians to change things and the public unions won't follow new laws, not fair. (Wisconsin)
"Politicians promised pensions, politicians elected by taxpayers." The problem with collective bargaining in public sector is that you pay union dues, which are in turn used to "buy political votes". The public unions are siting accross the table with politicians in their back pocket, thus the politician will promise anything and unfortunately things they really can't deliver.
The private sector says you can bargain for your wages, fine. But the pensions and insurance can not be bargained and public sector must pay more for this.
I own a small company, after taxes, insurance, wages, etc; there is not much left for a pension fund.
Don't take it personally, but the private sector can no longer support pensions/benefits. The teachers, firemen, policemen, government employee must bargain to stop the wastful spending, then more monies can go in everyones pocket, WOW what a concept.
many states have done away with collective bargaining, and we're doing just fine.
SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
Are you saying that all current and existing pension obligations be defaulted on immediately? Do you feel the same about Social Security? Do you feel the same about welfare? If you propose to end ALL government sponsored payments......across the board......sign me up! Or is it JUST public sector pensions that you want to ax?
<< <i>SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy?
A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. Are there still? >>
Same question to you Baley: Are you for the immediate discontinuation of Social Security, Medicaid, welfare, public pensions, and any other government funded payouts to anyone? If so, lets do it! Pay me simply a fair wage, i'll take care of the rest. But dont you dare send out another single Social Security check, or make another single Medicaid payment, or send out another single foodstamp. If you guys want reform, its gotta hit EVERYONE....not just your neighborhood cop or fireman or teacher. Deal?
I will say this: I don't plan on needing Social Security, I don't have a pension, I'm prepared to pay my way as well as taxes for others... to a point. If it gets excessive, I'm moving, but for now I accept the system and am not hypocritical. The one time I took "disability" for when my first kid was born, I didn't like the taste of the gov't entitlement check. When my second was born, I didn't file for the state insurance check, just took leave without pay and spent earned savings.
If I could/can afford to do so, I will decline social security when the time comes. I do not expect others to do so, and I certainly don't expect the abolition of any or all collective entitlement welfare systems that so many are on.
Edited to add: And if I needed the public assistance, I would be damned glad it was there, and that I was paying into it all the time. The problem is not so much use of the systems, but abuse of them.
Liberty: Parent of Science & Industry
<< <i>SOLUTION - Pay everyone a fair wage and wveryone pays into their own pension and all insurance.
what, you mean like a meritocracy instead of a senioritocracy or a who-you-know-ocracy?
A take-care-of-yourself-and-yours-ocracy instead of a public-take-care-of-me-ocracy?
gosh that would be a start!
edited to add: when I was in college 25 years ago, there were picketers and signs and petitions about CALPERS. At the time, the conflict seemed to be that they wanted everyone's money, and everyone didn't want to give it to them. Are they still arguing about the same subject? >>
They are pretty quite these days trying to cook the books. The senior execs pulled down over $500,000 a year the last few years. A little embarrassing ---the incompetence of their management skills is difficult to comprehend.
case in point: they got themselves into this leveraged land deal at the peak of the residential market. Anybody with a medium term perspective knows that RE slows, levels or declines periodically. It looks like very little risk assessment was done.
About $300 million "investment" . They bite on the deal on an all cash basis. They put 20% down ---thinking if that's how a homeowner can make money in RE...well what the hey---so can we. So they round up an 80% secured investor....if memory serves...it was the Rhode Island Pension fund...for the 80% First secured position.----AND give the RI fund a 100% guarantee on the +/- $ 240 million. Well CALPERS walked and the property crash dived. RI said..."give us our $240 million". Three Guesses who pays. First two guesses do not count. Criminal mismanagement.
CALPERS is at least 500 billion underfunded and is heading south as you read this.
We are not yet at the SHTF stage.
<< <i> Are you saying that all current and existing pension obligations be defaulted on immediately? Do you feel the same about Social Security? Do you feel the same about welfare? If you propose to end ALL government sponsored payments......across the board......sign me up! Or is it JUST public sector pensions that you want to ax? >>
I'm saying when the money runs out, so do the promises. Part of the problem is mismanaged pension funds. Part of it is greedy Walls St. crooks that took criminal advantage of the pension funds. Part of the problem is politicians buying votes with promises of glorified benefits. Part of the problem is greedy public union administrators just doing what they get paid to do. As a taxpayer, I don't want to be the solution to the problem.
I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars. Private employee bargaining is a completely different matter since the members are subject to competition: "You want a 75% salaray increase? Sorry bud the guy in Korea will do it for much less."
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
Me too!
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars. >>
Did you come up with that thought by yourself or did the mass media echo chamber play a part in that process?
In one of my past professions my boss said "Go over and see if you can help Tom with his job, hes stuck and needs help". After a short review I said, Tommy why don't you do this and that. Hes reply Quote ... "I didn't have that idea, but I think I'm gona"
They all seem to think that taxes are too low and vote the ticket. Maybe even FULD from Lehman Bros. Heck GE has a couple of bucks due to creative accounting.
GE=NBC=media support of present govt expansion=no taxes=
I'm
<< <i> I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. That is the best way to keep politicians from buying their votes with my tax dollars.
Did you come up with that thought by yourself or did the mass media echo chamber play a part in that process? >>
If you can't contribute to the discussion without personal attacks, go back to the baseball card forum and leave the adults to have their debate.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
I only ask this because you guys seem to know Phils contract inside and out. Well..atleast the part about his health coverage and pension. Or...could it be, you have no clue what you guys are talking about so you offer your "opinion" on how C.F.D employees contribute to thier retirement and health insurance.
DT1974, I suggested that if someone wanted to stand up to the scrutiny, he could offer up exactly what his retirement benefit payout will be in comparison to the amount he contributed. I think that would be reasonable, don't you? And if it is in the same ballpark as every other working stiff in terms of payout vs. paid-in, I'd be all fine & dandy with that.
I never suggested that I knew anything about his contract, so please, please try to be accurate. I did suggest that his benefits should be proportional to what other private wage earners might expect. I'd even allow for combat pay, but not in perpetuity - only for those years he was actually on the line.
I love it when people start flinging around labels such as "extreme" when it gores their own ox, but they have no problem with uping taxes on non-government employees and small businesses as if it's a non-event.
And Gecko, the Teamsters supported Emanuel FYI. I'm still trying to see who SEIU and the Teachers' Union supported, since it doesn't seem to have been widely reported. But since our argument involved only government union employees, I'd say that as far as Chicago is concerned, you may be correct in this one instance, but NOT historically. And that would still depend on which way the Teacher's Union went with their endorsement for mayor.
The point about collective bargaining for government employees is that when they are allowed to "collectively bargain", they are in a position to threaten a shutdown if they don't get their way, because there is no competition. That's just wrong. It's that simple. The proof is in exactly what we are seeing play out with state and city budgets in those states where public employee collective bargaining has been the norm. That is the proof. Period.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>If you can't contribute to the discussion without personal attacks, go back to the baseball card forum and leave the adults to have their debate. >>
The question does have a bit of an edge to it. Apologies
<< <i> I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions. >>
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source.
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining!
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>I support the loss of bargaining power to public employee unions.
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source. >>
Point well made. However it is an idea that I as a free market capitalist support. Those that support organized labor (and I am one) need to realize that there is a big diffence between public employee bargaining power and private sector bargaining power. An attack on the public unions that have helped pushed our state, county and local governments to the edge of bankruptcy is not necessarily an attack on non-public workers who have controls such as competition keeping their demands in check. Public union demands are a primary reason why many governments choose to outsource public services to private sector contractors.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!!
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local?
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining!
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
And are these manning levels realistic, or are they over inflated just to keep union members on the clock? Has your union really convinced you that the city could care less about the safety of the workers? Why would you even want to work for such an employer, especially in such a dangerous profession?
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.
<< <i>
<< <i>
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
DO you have evidence of that?
Is a very reckless idea. An idea that's been driven from one primary source.
I'd like to know what's reckless about it. The taxpayers have no on-the-spot collective bargaining power, and public employee unions shouldn't be allowed that kind of power either.
The teachers in Wisconsin should have been given disciplinary warnings and their pay should have been docked for every day they left work to protest. They have every right to protest in ways consistant with their consciences, but they also violated their public trust and should not be rewarded for that with taxpayer monies.
I knew it would happen.
<< <i>
<< <i>Could you please let me know what the minimum manning requirements are per shift as set forth by the local? >>
Does the "local" actually set the manning requirements for a government agency? Why not just let them do the managing instead of dictating how others should manage. Another reason to outlaw public union bargaining! >>
The unions negotiate minimum manning for safety reasons. The city left to make that decission could care less about the safety of the workers!!!! >>
And are these manning levels realistic, or are they over inflated just to keep union members on the clock? Has your union really convinced you that the city could care less about the safety of the workers? Why would you even want to work for such an employer? >>
I don't want to go into long stories. I've been in Gecko's shoes. The city I worked for when I hired on to their F.D. had a city wide manpower base of over 1200. Lots of fat and extras. Today city wide manpower is in the area of 530 and going down. The city could care less about a fire fighter safety. Underman rigs are unsafe to the lone donkey (firefighter) riding the back end. Nothing to do with keeping a union member on the clock. Those days are long LONG gone.
<< <i>I'm not trying to choose sides but am I the only one who thinks that some of the pro govt union arguements are a little self serving, lack points & authorities and just try to change the subject?
I suspect many of the pro govt union voices would feel differently if it did not have a direct impact on them. Most everybody wants to not raise taxes, unless of course, it affects them. In their shoes, I would feel the same.
Natural forces of supply and demand are the best regulators on earth.