|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 4, 2011 8:19:25 GMT -8
Public pension plans have two problems, being unfunded, and spiking pay in final year to increase pension size.
On local level the employees get to spike their final pay in their last year to increase the size of the pension. Sometimes as much, or more, than the pay in the year before retirement. That is wrong. What is right on the local level is that pension pool is funded as they go along. It is probably underfunded. A market surge might fix that is some cases. On the Federal level the the benefit is not gamed in the final year, that is right. What is wrong is that the pensions are not funded.
What we need to do is keep the right parts and get rid of the wrong parts. Local pensions should be figured on base pay, not final year gross pay. Federal pensions need to become funded.
COLAs need to be addressed as well. Employees in the private sector that retired with defined benefit plans do not see their pensions grow over time. There is no reason that public employees pensions should. Public employees should save for the future on their own to pay for future expenses.
I am hoping for some honest discussion, not just divisive politcal barbs. If barbs is all I get, I will not be surprised.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 4, 2011 10:21:12 GMT -8
Well, you know that I have said on many occasions that pensions should be owned and funded as you go. Would you consider that a step in the right direction?
I don't blame anybody for taking full advantage of whatever system they are in. It is just human nature.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2011 10:56:32 GMT -8
You forgot to mention the "free" health care. You also forgot to mention the grandfathering in of long retired employees to bring them up to the current contract. You also forgot to mention that in San Diego at least, employees are allowed to "retire", begin drawing a retirement check, get on the "free" health care gravy train and then get hired back on as a contractor. You also forgot to mention that it's impossible to fire the useless. You also forgot to mention early retirement.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 4, 2011 11:28:28 GMT -8
You forgot to mention the "free" health care. You also forgot to mention the grandfathering in of long retired employees to bring them up to the current contract. You also forgot to mention that in San Diego at least, employees are allowed to "retire", begin drawing a retirement check, get on the "free" health care gravy train and then get hired back on as a contractor. You also forgot to mention that it's impossible to fire the useless. You also forgot to mention early retirement. Dang! Why is he griping about Military and Federal Civil Service? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 4, 2011 13:42:25 GMT -8
You forgot to mention the "free" health care. You also forgot to mention the grandfathering in of long retired employees to bring them up to the current contract. You also forgot to mention that in San Diego at least, employees are allowed to "retire", begin drawing a retirement check, get on the "free" health care gravy train and then get hired back on as a contractor. You also forgot to mention that it's impossible to fire the useless. You also forgot to mention early retirement. Dang! Why is he griping about Military and Federal Civil Service? Oh, come on, Duke. You know I do not pick on Military or Federal Civil Service retirees. I pick on you.  |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 4, 2011 14:09:00 GMT -8
FDR Speaks
My dear Mr. Steward:
As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message.
Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs.
The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government.
All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters.
Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government."
I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful.
Very sincerely yours,
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 4, 2011 15:54:48 GMT -8
Well, you know that I have said on many occasions that pensions should be owned and funded as you go. Would you consider that a step in the right direction? I don't blame anybody for taking full advantage of whatever system they are in. It is just human nature. Funded by whom? The employer, or the employee? No blame by me either. I think we both know that the current systems are unsustainable, though. Would you care to expand on what you think public employee pensions should be like? |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 4, 2011 15:56:41 GMT -8
afan, your post was interesting, but not germane.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 5, 2011 12:59:44 GMT -8
Dang! Why is he griping about Military and Federal Civil Service? Oh, come on, Duke. You know I do not pick on Military or Federal Civil Service retirees. I pick on you. Dang! That is even worse. Singled out and discriminated against! |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 16:22:04 GMT -8
You forgot to mention the "free" health care. You also forgot to mention the grandfathering in of long retired employees to bring them up to the current contract. You also forgot to mention that in San Diego at least, employees are allowed to "retire", begin drawing a retirement check, get on the "free" health care gravy train and then get hired back on as a contractor. You also forgot to mention that it's impossible to fire the useless. You also forgot to mention early retirement. Who the fark gets free health care? I pay 1200 bucks a month for health and dental care through the County retirement system and that's for Kaiser which is the cheapest one offered. And really, it's impossible to fire workers? Clearly you've never worked in government. And what exactly is "early retirement"? Pooh retired from the Nav at age 38 while I retired when I was 18 years older than he was and still work half-time to make up the difference. Why is it you bozos never care to recognize that the military is the greatest welfare system this country has ever seen? Why is it you refuse to recognize that requiring everyone other than military personnel, no matter where and when they served get those benefits? I don't know what the story is with the City's retirement system other than it's totally farked up but never assume that every retirement system is as bad as the City's is. =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 16:24:35 GMT -8
You forgot to mention the "free" health care. You also forgot to mention the grandfathering in of long retired employees to bring them up to the current contract. You also forgot to mention that in San Diego at least, employees are allowed to "retire", begin drawing a retirement check, get on the "free" health care gravy train and then get hired back on as a contractor. You also forgot to mention that it's impossible to fire the useless. You also forgot to mention early retirement. Dang! Why is he griping about Military and Federal Civil Service? Um, because you got retirement and medical benefits at age 38 that I had to wait for until I was 56 to get (and that's not accurate since I'm sure I pay a ton more for medical care than you've ever paid). =Bob |
|
|
|
Post by Bob Forsythe on Apr 8, 2011 16:28:08 GMT -8
How pathetic - a right winger quotes FDR from a time our country was in the Depression. Hey, tell what - bet given some time you could find a cogent Franklyn Pierce quote to make your point. FDR SpeaksMy dear Mr. Steward: As I am unable to accept your kind invitation to be present on the occasion of the Twentieth Jubilee Convention of the National Federation of Federal Employees, I am taking this method of sending greetings and a message. Reading your letter of July 14, 1937, I was especially interested in the timeliness of your remark that the manner in which the activities of your organization have been carried on during the past two decades "has been in complete consonance with the best traditions of public employee relationships." Organizations of Government employees have a logical place in Government affairs. The desire of Government employees for fair and adequate pay, reasonable hours of work, safe and suitable working conditions, development of opportunities for advancement, facilities for fair and impartial consideration and review of grievances, and other objectives of a proper employee relations policy, is basically no different from that of employees in private industry. Organization on their part to present their views on such matters is both natural and logical, but meticulous attention should be paid to the special relationships and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government. All Government employees should realize that the process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service. It has its distinct and insurmountable limitations when applied to public personnel management. The very nature and purposes of Government make it impossible for administrative officials to represent fully or to bind the employer in mutual discussions with Government employee organizations. The employer is the whole people, who speak by means of laws enacted by their representatives in Congress. Accordingly, administrative officials and employees alike are governed and guided, and in many instances restricted, by laws which establish policies, procedures, or rules in personnel matters. Particularly, I want to emphasize my conviction that militant tactics have no place in the functions of any organization of Government employees. Upon employees in the Federal service rests the obligation to serve the whole people, whose interests and welfare require orderliness and continuity in the conduct of Government activities. This obligation is paramount. Since their own services have to do with the functioning of the Government, a strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to prevent or obstruct the operations of Government until their demands are satisfied. Such action, looking toward the paralysis of Government by those who have sworn to support it, is unthinkable and intolerable. It is, therefore, with a feeling of gratification that I have noted in the constitution of the National Federation of Federal Employees the provision that "under no circumstances shall this Federation engage in or support strikes against the United States Government." I congratulate the National Federation of Federal Employees the twentieth anniversary of its founding and trust that the convention will, in every way, be successful. Very sincerely yours, |
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 8, 2011 17:30:16 GMT -8
Dang! Why is he griping about Military and Federal Civil Service? Um, because you got retirement and medical benefits at age 38 that I had to wait for until I was 56 to get (and that's not accurate since I'm sure I pay a ton more for medical care than you've ever paid). =Bob Dang! I took advantage of the system that I was covered by. How do you suggest that I make that up to you? Some direct transfer program? I now send money to a child in Central America each month through a "Feed The Hungrey" program. Should I also adopt you? You would have to give up smokes, drinking and eat only healthy meals, but something could be worked out. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 9, 2011 9:58:59 GMT -8
An in depth article in this week's Economist on pensions in general. San Diego City gets a mention in the public pension section. The unions do not get the blame in the article. The city does. Our situation is not as bad as other public entitys. Not to say ours is good.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 9, 2011 12:18:54 GMT -8
An in depth article in this week's Economist on pensions in general. San Diego City gets a mention in the public pension section. The unions do not get the blame in the article. The city does. Our situation is not as bad as other public entitys. Not to say ours is good. Did you catch the details of the proposed change to that system? Sounds a lot like what I advocate. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 10, 2011 9:20:46 GMT -8
An in depth article in this week's Economist on pensions in general. San Diego City gets a mention in the public pension section. The unions do not get the blame in the article. The city does. Our situation is not as bad as other public entitys. Not to say ours is good. Did you catch the details of the proposed change to that system? Sounds a lot like what I advocate. Do you mean 401(k) plans for new city employees? If so, yes. However,you and I both know the reason for doing so is to relieve San Diego of future pension liabilty for new hires. It has nothing to do with providing secure pensions for new hires. In fact, none of the studys I have read say that 401(k)s will work out for employees in retirement. They are as underfunded as public pensions. |
|
|
|
Post by AztecWilliam on Apr 10, 2011 9:52:11 GMT -8
Just a note here on post retirement health care costs. As a retiree with STRS (CA teachers) I get a nice pension (about 70% of my last year's pay after 30 years of service) but nothing toward health care. Some districts, I believe, do pay for retiree health care. I think LA Unified does, and it's costing them a lot.
Bob, you did not get as good a deal as my wife, who retired from the County in 1997. Her costs were covered completely for some years, but now she must pay a small portion herself. I'm sure the system has been changed since she retired, but $1200 a month sounds like a lot. Does the County not pay anything toward your health care costs?
The bottom line is that too much has been promised to too many and the piper is tapping his foot impatiently outside the government's door demanding to be paid. Changing the system (actually "systems") so that local, state, and federal governments are back on a sound and sustainable financial basis is going to be painful. But it is absolutely necessary if we do not want to end up like countries such as Greece, Ireland, and (for several generations) Argentina.
One of our two major political parties is seriously trying to do something about this, at least on the federal level. The other is trying to demagogue the issue in order to enhance their political power, regardless of how bad the crash will be when the bill finally comes due.
Try to guess which description correctly describes which party. (Regarding which party is serious, here is a hint: last year one of the parties, despite controlling the White House and . . .by very large margins . . . both houses of Congress, refused to pass a budget for the year 2011.)
AzWm
|
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 10, 2011 11:03:41 GMT -8
What a softball, William. The Republicans are the demagogues, The Democrats want to to something about the deficit. Witness the last time we had a Democrat in the White House. Clinton was wonders. We had a balanced budget. That was after Clinton inherited a economic mess from Bush the Elder. Obama has inherited an even bigger mess from Bush the Younger. Please tell us the last time a Republican left office with smaller deficit than when he entered? I hope Obama can make as much progress as Clinton did. He has a harder job, though. Deficit is bigger and the Republicans are in charge of the House.
As to why the past Congress did not pass a budget? I agree that the fault is Obama's. The man kept trying for "bi-partisanship" in passing a budget. That was a mistake. The Republican's strategy was to tie up the process by guaranteeing that no Republican crossed party lines. The ran out the clock because Obama foolishly thought that the Republicans would put country before party.
I kept sending him e-mails telling him to ignore the GOP and pass the budget. Towards the end I told him to ram the budget down the GOP's throat. The man was too naive about conservatives. I hope he has learned that conservatives only care about themselves and acquiring the power to protect what they own.
|
|
|
|
Post by aztecwin on Apr 10, 2011 11:44:29 GMT -8
Did you catch the details of the proposed change to that system? Sounds a lot like what I advocate. Do you mean 401(k) plans for new city employees? If so, yes. However,you and I both know the reason for doing so is to relieve San Diego of future pension liability for new hires. It has nothing to do with providing secure pensions for new hires. In fact, none of the studys I have read say that 401(k)s will work out for employees in retirement. They are as underfunded as public pensions. A 401K will absolutely meet retirement needs. It is a question of funding that plan out of current receipts to a level that will work out adequately. It is about funding to recognize the real cost without some future unfunded liability. They do not have to be underfunded and the real beauty is that it does not go away when you pass on. |
|
|
|
Post by aztec70 on Apr 10, 2011 13:27:26 GMT -8
Do you mean 401(k) plans for new city employees? If so, yes. However,you and I both know the reason for doing so is to relieve San Diego of future pension liability for new hires. It has nothing to do with providing secure pensions for new hires. In fact, none of the studys I have read say that 401(k)s will work out for employees in retirement. They are as underfunded as public pensions. A 401K will absolutely meet retirement needs. It is a question of funding that plan out of current receipts to a level that will work out adequately. It is about funding to recognize the real cost without some future unfunded liability. They do not have to be underfunded and the real beauty is that it does not go away when you pass on. Of course, it is about funding. As I said, I have read no studys that say current funding levels for 401(k)s are adequate. The vast majority of people are no good at delayed gratification. This may well change in a generation or two when future workers see their parent's and grandparent's income streams from their inadequate savings run out. Most people will not be passing on 401(k) accounts to their heirs. |
|
