| Submit your comments on this article |
| Home Front Economy |
| Gilt-Edged Pensions |
| 2009-02-07 |
| Posted by:tipper |
| #11 I'd agree that the pressure would be there, but if you balance the pay of public vs private, with bennies? I can't think that in the post-stimulus tax climate, you'd be able to argue their union's argument. I haven't had a raise in quite a while, and you know what? I understand that. I'll likely not get one for quite a while, either. And I understand that too. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-02-07 19:54 |
| #10 Frank, if they privatize I would bet that the unions would insist (and the current Congress and administration would agree) that the companies offer the same benefits and retirement plan as the government. Which would make it too expensive to privatize. |
| Posted by: Rambler in Virginia 2009-02-07 19:08 |
| #9 BTW - I meant the above only as a selfish perspective on Tech/Professional ranks. Why you would pay parks maintenance workers/trash pick up/clerical, etc. a pension and healthcare is something I can't defend (or support). Too easy to privatize, and eventually, they will |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-02-07 17:27 |
| #8 there is a legit gripe about OT boosting retirement pay as well as guaranteed returns above market returns. The rest (as a biased opinion, I have a public gov't pension awaiting in 10+ years) is scolding public employees for decisions made in good faith years ago. As an engineer, I could've made $30K+ more each year in private (that was actually offered). Instead, I chose to stay, and secure a retirement with defined benefit and healthcare. I also paid FICA for any side work I did, which I'll never see... We also received improved retirement bennies (.25%/year) in a 4 yr period where the City didn't want to give any raises. Again, that was accepted as an informed decision: is it worth the $ in retirement to forgo raises for four years? Yes, was my opinion. My pension is maxed at 90% (at 2.5%/yr of service) with health benefits. I would have to serve 36 years (do the math) to achieve that. Is that a good pension? Hell yeah. Would you take that versus the increased pay in private, but lack of job security? YMMV. Cops and Fire have the game rigged with Safety pension bennies (3%, retire at 50 or 55...), but if that's what's offered, and you were in Fire or Police occupations, and it was offered, would you take it? Reform the system for new hires, OK, and see what you get for a workforce. |
| Posted by: Frank G 2009-02-07 17:11 |
| #7 I retired out of industry after 30+ years. When I start collecting Social Security my pension goes down by what ever my SS is. There is no adjusting for inflation and my pension can disappear in the wink of an eye. |
| Posted by: Cheaderhead 2009-02-07 16:30 |
| #6 The National Security Personnel System has addressed DOD civilian pay / pension issues by requiring that some of each annual up be in the form of a 1 time bonus rather than a base pay raise. Starting salaries are lower, too, to allow managers to reward better workers with bigger bonuses as well as raises. I've seen one study specifically requested by DOD leaders that analyzes the effects of various policies re: bonus / raise awards to determine the cumulative effect over 20-30 years. So in the DOD / intel community, at least, this is being addressed for civilians as well as military. |
| Posted by: lotp 2009-02-07 16:18 |
| #5 Hell, we already have one person in manufacturing and construction supporting 1.x persons in government. |
| Posted by: ed 2009-02-07 16:07 |
| #4 Except - you missed the news. Part of the demographic pyramid scheme that is Social Security is that eventually you end up with one person supporting another person on pension. With the growth of government at all levels, you get the same effect. Now you have one person supporting a pensioner and a government employee. Somehow you have to start capping the redistribution. The point you skip over is that the old system was based upon lower pay up front with earlier retirement later. Today, most get parity already. If you paid attention to the details on our military, you'd find that while their pay is up right now, a big chunk of it is in bonuses rather than base pay done intentionally to avoid the pension bomb that would happen 15, 12, 10 or even 8 years later. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-02-07 15:46 |
| #3 Glad to see that there is no family favorites in hiring, hiring of fellow frat college mates, stripping of assets, use of company equipment by senior management, ect. in the private sector. /s There is much blaming of the Worker in government when when they just do the job the public and politicians and public want. Please keep your focus on the real locus of the problems we are dealing with. We have met the enemy and he is us. There is no free lunch. Pick your programs and fund them properly, cut the rest. Easier said than done.... |
| Posted by: tipover 2009-02-07 14:11 |
| #2 Yessiree bob, it's those ugly policemen, firemen and military pensioners who are causing all the problems. We've cured it in the private sector by shipping jobs overseas and buy hiring Kelly Girl/Guy temp contractors or 1099's. When is the governemnt going to wise up? Snark off. |
| Posted by: Besoeker 2009-02-07 12:56 |
| #1 Government retirements should be capped at the average taxpayer's income. If they want more, get the average taxpayer's income up. |
| Posted by: Procopius2k 2009-02-07 12:17 |