P
PseuTonym
Guest
If you are retired military, then I presume that you don’t have armies in Ukraine.
youtube.com/watch?v=Mzqn-bXTq0k
Income equality: abolish pensions based on having been a government employee
- Status
youtube.com/watch?v=Mzqn-bXTq0k
P
pensmama87
Guest
My husband works for the government. In every position he’s had, he’s saved taxpayers more than double his salary every single year without cutting jobs or services. He’s a dedicated public servant, who turned down offers for private jobs that paid a heck of a lot more so he didn’t have to leave the area he grew up in that he loves dearly, and so he could spend more time with his family.
But I suppose the OP might be like a few of the folks who like to come to public meetings and grouse because there was an employee appreciation breakfast.
Has my husband had lazy, unreliable coworkers? You bet. Has he had to discipline and terminate employees? Yes. But nothing beyond what you would see in any private sector job. And everything he does - everything - is open to public scrutiny. And they do scrutinize. He gets to be yelled at by strangers several times a month who have no idea what he does, but they think they do because after all, isn’t he just a bottom in a chair wasting all their money?
Ridiculous.
But I suppose the OP might be like a few of the folks who like to come to public meetings and grouse because there was an employee appreciation breakfast.
Has my husband had lazy, unreliable coworkers? You bet. Has he had to discipline and terminate employees? Yes. But nothing beyond what you would see in any private sector job. And everything he does - everything - is open to public scrutiny. And they do scrutinize. He gets to be yelled at by strangers several times a month who have no idea what he does, but they think they do because after all, isn’t he just a bottom in a chair wasting all their money?
Ridiculous.
S
SuperLuigi
Guest
Those are created in the free market and are private contracts. There’s a big difference because government isn’t held accountable by the same market-based restrains and thus prone to much more corruption and scandal.
J
JimG
Guest
There was a good deal of corruption and scandal within the federal employee ranks before the advent of the civil service system, which was designed to reduce it. Now, you have to go a lot higher than the rank and file in order for corruption to be workable. Offering a bribe to your local FHA loan underwriter is no longer feasible. The problems lie in the regulatory apparatus.
R
ricmat
Guest
It seems to me that corruption in the other direction is the problem (from a high level administrator to the rank and file, or from the president to everybody else.) For example, “put a special restroom for transgenders in all your public facilities, or you will lose federal funding…”
P
ProVobis
Guest
Jim, are these companies still awarding pensions to current employees? I haven’t been able to find a company which still pays into an employee pension since before 2000.
Pension funds have severely suffered in the low interest rate environment. Of course they can always print money to make up the difference, but I don’t know of any private pension plan which can do so.
S
Secret_Square
Guest
There’s one very big reason why we should not abolish pensions ALREADY earned by CURRENT government employees: two wrongs don’t make a right.
It is unfortunate and unjust that some private companies have cheated employees and retirees out of pensions they had been promised and had spent years of their lives working toward. However, inflicting the same injustice and broken promises on another group of people does nothing to solve that problem.
I am a government (state) employee and I do have a pension plan, though it is grossly underfunded and it’s anyone’s guess what it will look like in the future. Pension benefits were significantly reduced several years ago for all persons hired for the first time after a specified date.
I would say that elected officials should not have pensions based upon the office they hold, since elected offices are not intended to be lifetime careers. I dunno, however, that getting rid of pensions for the ordinary worker who doesn’t have authority to make policy decisions, but who carries a degree of valuable institutional memory and skills, is necessarily a good idea. But if it is done, it should be done ONLY for persons hired AFTER a set date in the near future, so that they know from Day 1 exactly what they can expect, and do not have a promise made to them only to have it broken later.
Now, what to do about current unfunded pension liabilities? Can current retirees or current employees have their pension benefits reduced from what they were originally promised? That depends on the laws of the state or locality you live in. Chances are that some, perhaps most, pensions will not be able to be funded at their current level and there will have to be some diminishment of benefits so that the entire state/city budget is not consumed simply with making pension payments.
The important thing, however, is to go about this in the right spirit – NOT with the attitude that “government employees are all greedy, lazy incompetents who don’t deserve these benefits and need to be cut down to size,” but with the attitude that it is in everyone’s best interest, no matter who they work for, to have a fiscally sound government and a thriving private sector. No one benefits from a “bankrupt” state or city that places such onerous taxes on the private sector that it’s impossible for people who don’t work for the government to make a decent living. Nor does anyone benefit from a government whose employee pay and benefits are so low (think McD’s or Wal Mart) that there is constant employee turnover and no one knows how to do anything.
As for aligning government employee pay with the private sector, there are some jobs – generally, professional jobs that require advanced degrees – for which that would require RAISING the pay to match the private sector. Other jobs, generally the less skilled jobs like custodians, secretaries/office staff, nurses aides, etc. would earn less in the private sector. However, there are many government jobs that simply don’t have any counterpart or equivalent in the private sector (like the job I do, reviewing proposed state regulations and collecting public comment on them). How would their pay be determined?
Oh, and by the way:
It is unfortunate and unjust that some private companies have cheated employees and retirees out of pensions they had been promised and had spent years of their lives working toward. However, inflicting the same injustice and broken promises on another group of people does nothing to solve that problem.
I am a government (state) employee and I do have a pension plan, though it is grossly underfunded and it’s anyone’s guess what it will look like in the future. Pension benefits were significantly reduced several years ago for all persons hired for the first time after a specified date.
I would say that elected officials should not have pensions based upon the office they hold, since elected offices are not intended to be lifetime careers. I dunno, however, that getting rid of pensions for the ordinary worker who doesn’t have authority to make policy decisions, but who carries a degree of valuable institutional memory and skills, is necessarily a good idea. But if it is done, it should be done ONLY for persons hired AFTER a set date in the near future, so that they know from Day 1 exactly what they can expect, and do not have a promise made to them only to have it broken later.
Now, what to do about current unfunded pension liabilities? Can current retirees or current employees have their pension benefits reduced from what they were originally promised? That depends on the laws of the state or locality you live in. Chances are that some, perhaps most, pensions will not be able to be funded at their current level and there will have to be some diminishment of benefits so that the entire state/city budget is not consumed simply with making pension payments.
The important thing, however, is to go about this in the right spirit – NOT with the attitude that “government employees are all greedy, lazy incompetents who don’t deserve these benefits and need to be cut down to size,” but with the attitude that it is in everyone’s best interest, no matter who they work for, to have a fiscally sound government and a thriving private sector. No one benefits from a “bankrupt” state or city that places such onerous taxes on the private sector that it’s impossible for people who don’t work for the government to make a decent living. Nor does anyone benefit from a government whose employee pay and benefits are so low (think McD’s or Wal Mart) that there is constant employee turnover and no one knows how to do anything.
As for aligning government employee pay with the private sector, there are some jobs – generally, professional jobs that require advanced degrees – for which that would require RAISING the pay to match the private sector. Other jobs, generally the less skilled jobs like custodians, secretaries/office staff, nurses aides, etc. would earn less in the private sector. However, there are many government jobs that simply don’t have any counterpart or equivalent in the private sector (like the job I do, reviewing proposed state regulations and collecting public comment on them). How would their pay be determined?
Oh, and by the way:
- It IS possible for government employees to be fired, particularly if they are not unionized. My job is “at will” and at least one person has been fired from the agency I work for since I’ve been there. It is, however, a lot harder to fire someone from a government job if they belong to a union, though it is not impossible.
- Government is supposed to be “held accountable” ultimately by you, the voters.
G
Gertabelle
Guest
So then, I suppose you’re saying that your wife had no concern for her students – that all she wanted was more pay, fewer hours, more benefits? That’s a terrible accusation to make against her.
As a public school teacher, my contracted work day is 8:00 - 4:00, which includes a 30 minute lunch. Wahoo.
This past week, I left the building at 5:30 on Tuesday, 6:00 on Wednesday and Thursday, and 5:15 on Friday.
The teachers in my building – as most other teachers I have known and worked with – would lay down their lives for their students and their families. And some teachers and school staff HAVE laid down their lives for their students.
But when I’m not worrying about physical death, I am spending this one, precious, irreplaceable gift of my life – my energy, my intelligence, my creativity, my compassion, my concern, my money, my time, and even my health – for the well-being and education of God’s precious wee ones.
And NO, I am not some one-in-a-million exception!
I’m no saint.I do what’s needed for my students, as do ALL the staff members in my building. Those who can’t or won’t do what’s needed (regardless of how much time or energy it takes) are shown the door. I’ve seen staff members let go in the middle of the school year because of their incompetency or laziness.
Although studies in the past twenty years don’t all agree, there’s solid evidence that perhaps as many as 20% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years.
Teaching – especially in the public schools – is difficult, dangerous, and makes you the scapegoat or pawn of every politician, every late-night pundit, and every curmudgeon who thinks all you need to teach 2nd grade is a 3rd grade education.
Before you go accusing teachers of being lazy, money-grasping, and uncaring, I invite you to spend a couple days shadowing me and some of my colleagues – if you can keep up. I teach eight classes a day, and currently have three after-school classes a week… AND I’m a single mom, and the organist at one of our Sunday masses each week.
God bless you and grant you peace.
T
Trader
Guest
Why is income equality even a goal unless everyone works equally hard, serves the needs of others equally well, and spends equally prudently, so they can save enough to care for their equal sized families?
R
ricmat
Guest
I was talking about the unions always demanding more more more, not all the teachers. And I’m not questioning your dedication in terms of time, treasure, or talent. Teachers run the gamut from very poor to very good. You seem very good.So then, I suppose you’re saying that your wife had no concern for her students – that all she wanted was more pay, fewer hours, more benefits? That’s a terrible accusation to make against her.
As a public school teacher, my contracted work day is 8:00 - 4:00, which includes a 30 minute lunch. Wahoo.
This past week, I left the building at 5:30 on Tuesday, 6:00 on Wednesday and Thursday, and 5:15 on Friday.
The teachers in my building – as most other teachers I have known and worked with – would lay down their lives for their students and their families. And some teachers and school staff HAVE laid down their lives for their students.
But when I’m not worrying about physical death, I am spending this one, precious, irreplaceable gift of my life – my energy, my intelligence, my creativity, my compassion, my concern, my money, my time, and even my health – for the well-being and education of God’s precious wee ones.
And NO, I am not some one-in-a-million exception!
I do what’s needed for my students, as do ALL the staff members in my building. Those who can’t or won’t do what’s needed (regardless of how much time or energy it takes) are shown the door. I’ve seen staff members let go in the middle of the school year because of their incompetency or laziness.
Although studies in the past twenty years don’t all agree, there’s solid evidence that perhaps as many as 20% of teachers leave the profession within their first five years.
Teaching – especially in the public schools – is difficult, dangerous, and makes you the scapegoat or pawn of every politician, every late-night pundit, and every curmudgeon who thinks all you need to teach 2nd grade is a 3rd grade education.
Before you go accusing teachers of being lazy, money-grasping, and uncaring, I invite you to spend a couple days shadowing me and some of my colleagues – if you can keep up. I teach eight classes a day, and currently have three after-school classes a week… AND I’m a single mom, and the organist at one of our Sunday masses each week.
God bless you and grant you peace.
But the unions - my wife got all the flyers and union oriented political propaganda, went to meetings, etc. We know what they want. It’s always more pay more benefits more pensions, and to heck with the taxpayers. I’ve lived in half a dozen different states and its the same all over. I stand by my statement that the unions have no interest in students (and just for clarification, I’ll add that many the teachers actually in the unions are truly wonderful, just like you.)
I’ll bet that your pay, benefits, and pensions are better than private sector teaching positions. Do you disagree?
P
PseuTonym
Guest
I agree that if pensions are to be abolished for some jobs performed by government employees, then it should be clearly specified before a given individual is hired for one of those jobs that the job doesn’t include a pension.
In fact, I agree with everything contributed by you, Secret Square, that I quoted above. This thread begins with a proposal, and I cannot claim to know that it is a good idea. I simply hoped that it would spark an interesting discussion. Your contribution to this thread marks the moment when I have no doubt that the discussion is interesting. Thank you.
Reducing the pension benefits from what was promised to government employees to a lower level is different from abolishing pension benefits for government employees, but it seems that it would nevertheless be a broken promise. Near the beginning of your message, you mentioned that inflicting on government employees the same broken promises that have been inflicted on private sector employees does nothing to solve the problem.
Perhaps a subtopic in this thread (or in another thread) should focus on the twin problems of how much unfunded pension liabilities governments have, and what changes of government policy would allow people to become more productive economically, so that there would be enough revenue to pay for all needs, and to fulfill all promises.
S
Secret_Square
Guest
Thank you for your kind words! Too often these discussions degenerate into a sort of class warfare pitting government vs. private sector. It’s exactly the wrong approach, for the reasons I described. This issue, like so many others, is often cast in terms of “us vs. them” when it should be cast in terms of “let’s do the best we can, as far as reasonably possible, for everyone”.
It’s also important to acknowledge that situations may develop in which it is impossible to find a solution that is perfectly fair or just to everyone involved, and in which some people will suffer a loss of benefits or privileges that is not necessarily their fault. My goal would be to minimize the harm to those who are least at fault, and to try to balance benefit cutbacks vs. other budget cuts vs. increased or new taxes in a way that doesn’t put a disproportionate burden on only one group of people.
It’s also important to acknowledge that situations may develop in which it is impossible to find a solution that is perfectly fair or just to everyone involved, and in which some people will suffer a loss of benefits or privileges that is not necessarily their fault. My goal would be to minimize the harm to those who are least at fault, and to try to balance benefit cutbacks vs. other budget cuts vs. increased or new taxes in a way that doesn’t put a disproportionate burden on only one group of people.
W
WilliamE
Guest
You remind me of my 93 year old father. He has been living on his federal pension for the past 33 years, receiving way more than he ever made while earning a salary. I can still hear him complaining about “leeches” receiving a government allowance who “are sucking way more out of the system than they ever put in.” He doesn’t say that so much anymore.
R
ricmat
Guest
I think the issue is that these days, only government employees get pensions. In the private sector, they are very rare. (What makes government employees so special?)
Luckily, I snuck in under the wire, starting to work for GE in 1973. I have a pension today that is about a quarter of the salary I was making when I was laid off after 22 years service (which I couldn’t start taking until I reached 60 years old). At least I get something, which is more than most non-government employees get.
So, since your father “doesn’t say that so much anymore”, I’ll say it in his stead.
I
Inisfallen
Guest
Both my mother and my father were government employees. My mother was a teacher (who was very concerned about her students and taught, voluntarily, in the toughest schools), my father was a judge. Both received pensions.
My mother died very young, and so never received her pension, but my father (who continued to work well into his seventies) was able to stay in his home and live comfortably in his old age.
Thank God for those pensions.
Also, it must be pointed out that a lawyer with the ability and experience required to be a federal judge could make multiples of a judge’s salary in private practice. At big New York firms, a first-year associate makes as much or more than a U.S. District Court judge. Seems like the pension is only fair (and it’s mandated by the Constitution, so we can’t abolish federal judges’ pensions without a constitutional amendment).
I have to say, I’m a bit surprised to see someone advocating abolition of pensions, even government pensions, in the Social Justice forum.
My mother died very young, and so never received her pension, but my father (who continued to work well into his seventies) was able to stay in his home and live comfortably in his old age.
Thank God for those pensions.
Also, it must be pointed out that a lawyer with the ability and experience required to be a federal judge could make multiples of a judge’s salary in private practice. At big New York firms, a first-year associate makes as much or more than a U.S. District Court judge. Seems like the pension is only fair (and it’s mandated by the Constitution, so we can’t abolish federal judges’ pensions without a constitutional amendment).
I have to say, I’m a bit surprised to see someone advocating abolition of pensions, even government pensions, in the Social Justice forum.
B
BobCatholic
Guest
But a District Court Judge can go home on time. A first year associate is worked to death and never sees their family.
I’m all for yanking the pensions of cronies.
There was a scandal in Chicago where a Union BigWig making $400K a year at his union got a one day city job. He retired with a nice juicy city pension on top of his union pension. The time and salary he spent on the union was counted for pension purposes.
Clearly a crony.
Another one where a 19 year old kid got a job as a building inspector (requires 10 years experience).
Another crony.
Every single Patronage (crony) job has a pension.
I know not all government employees are cronies. But too many are.
R
ricmat
Guest
Contrary to what many people think, social justice does not consist of being generous with other people’s money. Although I have to admit that it sounds fun to do, at least until you run out of other people’s money.
The vast majority of those government pensions are paid via taxes on non-government earnings, by people who have no pensions at all.
Those very few who do have pensions, like me, are paid a quarter of our final year’s earnings, not to start before age 60 or 65. Government pensions are often 100% of the last years earnings, and you can take them as early as 50 (or earlier in the military).
Private pensions often disappear, like with Enron. Private pensions are limited in the sense that companies who are overly generous with them go out of business (along with the pension). And private pensions are usually paid into by the employee.
But with the government - pay 100% for the rest of your life starting immediately, never worry about going out of business. Need more money to pay people for not working? No problem, raise taxes. Cut services, raise taxes, cut more services. Raise taxes. Because government employees are special.
H
HB11
Guest
:thumbsup:thank you the other poster doesn’t know what the heck they are talking about. I would sy more but my husband is still working at the post office so…
O
oldgraymare2
Guest
You’re right.
I think that there are a lot of misconceptions out there about the salaries for some government jobs, too.
Unless you’re at the top of the pay scale, some of the jobs don’t pay much differently than a private sector job.
Also, many of these jobs can also be temporary or contract jobs, too.
P
PseuTonym
Guest
- Status