Public Union Pension Plan Changes

[Wiseacre]

There was another important vote last night, this time in San Diego. I think this is the direction that all public unions oughta be going in.


" The passage of San Diego’s Proposition B, which limits pension payments for city employees and moves new hires into a “defined contribution” 401(k)-style pension plan. Prop B, which was strongly opposed by public employees unions, nevertheless passed by an almost two-to-one margin in a city with a history of pension funding problems. For the eighth-largest city in the country, not to mention one located in union-heavy California, to enact such an ambitious change will give heart to pension reformers around the country. As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

The other big news from last night « The Enterprise Blog

 

[Meister]

I think this is going to be a growing trend across America after what happened in Wi.

 

[Claudette]

I think this is going to be a growing trend across America after what happened in Wi.

Yup. I agree.

 

[Wiseacre]

I read a report recently that many states, counties, and cities are privatizing some gov't functions, which essentially offloads the pension and HC obligations. Actually, the Feds are doing it too.

 

[The T]

I think this is going to be a growing trend across America after what happened in Wi.

Long time coming. Unions are going to be reined in because the public can't afford them any longer.

Even FDR said PSU's were a BAD idea...

Even President Franklin Roosevelt, a friend of private-sector unionism, drew a line when it came to government workers: “Meticulous attention,” the president insisted in 1937, “should be paid to the special relations and obligations of public servants to the public itself and to the Government….The process of collective bargaining, as usually understood, cannot be transplanted into the public service.” The reason? F.D.R. believed that “[a] strike of public employees manifests nothing less than an intent on their part to 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.”

Worth recalling: FDR was no fan of public employee unions

 

[Steelplate]

Limiting pension payments how? I'm ok with that.....IF a civil servant who dedicates 30+ years to the people of their locality, state, or nation isn't thrown into poverty by the move. I especially am OK with the laying it on the line for new hires. If they know in advance what the deal is, they can choose to accept employment in the public sector or not.

But to fuck over people who have spent their adult lives in the service of the people....no....I am against it.

 

[Claudette]

I read a report recently that many states, counties, and cities are privatizing some gov't functions, which essentially offloads the pension and HC obligations. Actually, the Feds are doing it too.

I've read that as well.

Sandy Point, GA privitized all of their municiple works.

The Town is making out like a bandit as far as saving money and getting shit done.

Wouldn't surprise me to see more towns do the same.

 

[DontBeStupid]

As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

 

[Conservative]

I think this is going to be a growing trend across America after what happened in Wi.

But Democrats said that WI was just one state election, and it wouldn't affect the Presidential election or anything else. Did they... lie?

 

[Wiseacre]

As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

Guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't see it as pulling down, I see it as a way to be able to meet the obligations the city has. Which they obviously can't the way things were.

 

[Wiseacre]

Limiting pension payments how? I'm ok with that.....IF a civil servant who dedicates 30+ years to the people of their locality, state, or nation isn't thrown into poverty by the move. I especially am OK with the laying it on the line for new hires. If they know in advance what the deal is, they can choose to accept employment in the public sector or not.

But to fuck over people who have spent their adult lives in the service of the people....no....I am against it.

Further information from this link to an AP report. San Jose had a very similar proposition on their ballot last night too. I believe both measures passed, with 66% of the vote in SD and 70% of the vote in SJ.

San Diego voters approve cuts to city pensions - Yahoo! News

" SAN DIEGO (AP) — Voters overwhelmingly approved a measure to cut retirement benefits for government workers in San Diego on Tuesday and a similar measure held a commanding lead in San Jose in twin contests being closely watched as states and cities throughout the country struggle with pension obligations.
.
.
Shrinking tax revenues during the recession are also responsible for service cuts, but pensions are an easy target. San Diego's payments to the city's retirement fund soared from $43 million in 1999 to $231.2 million this year, equal to 20 percent of the city's general fund budget, which pays for day-to-day operations.

As the pension payments grew, San Diego's 1.3 million residents saw roads deteriorate and libraries and recreation centers cut hours. For a while, some fire stations had to share engines and trucks. The city has cut its workforce 14 percent to 10,100 employees since Sanders took office in 2005.

San Jose's pension payments jumped from $73 million in 2001 to $245 million this year, equal to 27 percent of its general fund budget. Voters there approved construction bonds at the beginning of the last decade, but four new libraries and a police station have never opened because the city cannot afford to operate them. The city of 960,000 cut its workforce 27 percent to 5,400 over the last 10 years
.
.
The ballot measures differ on specifics. San Diego's Proposition B imposes a six-year freeze on pay levels used to determine pension benefits unless a two-thirds majority of the City Council votes to override it. It also puts new hires, except for police officers, into 401(k)-style plans.

More than 100,000 residents signed petitions to put the San Diego measure on the ballot.
Under San Jose's Measure B, current workers would have to pay up to 16 percent of their salaries to keep their retirement plan or accept more modest benefits. New hires would get less generous benefits.

 

[DontBeStupid]

As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

Guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't see it as pulling down, I see it as a way to be able to meet the obligations the city has. Which they obviously can't the way things were.

Hmm. The city can't meet its legally agreed to obligations? Who's fault is that?

 

[skookerasbil]

Yup....fuck these greedy public employee unions. Love when they have to take their bats and balls and go home

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

And I know that anyone that doesn't understand how unions circumvent the marketplace in terms of wage and benefit value is a stupid fiuckwit.

 

[DontBeStupid]

As Jason Richwine of Heritage and I have shown [elsewhere], generous traditional pension benefits are a main driver of pay differences between public and private sector employees. "

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

And I know that anyone that doesn't understand how unions circumvent the marketplace in terms of wage and benefit value is a stupid fiuckwit.

Why don't you explain it to us then.

 

[Wiseacre]

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

Guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't see it as pulling down, I see it as a way to be able to meet the obligations the city has. Which they obviously can't the way things were.

Hmm. The city can't meet its legally agreed to obligations? Who's fault is that?

My guess would be the politicians, mostly democrats, who agreed to those obligations, and also the unions, mostly public, who own them. Surely you are aware of what's been going on in California for the last several decades.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

I think anyone who thinks pulling down union workers as a means of addressing pay differences is a moron.

And I know that anyone that doesn't understand how unions circumvent the marketplace in terms of wage and benefit value is a stupid fiuckwit.

Why don't you explain it to us then.

Thanks for backing up my point.

 

[DontBeStupid]

And I know that anyone that doesn't understand how unions circumvent the marketplace in terms of wage and benefit value is a stupid fiuckwit.

Why don't you explain it to us then.

Thanks for backing up my point.

So, you can't explain it. You could have just said so. Want me to explain how unions help raise wages for all workers?

 

[DontBeStupid]

Guess it's all in how you look at it. I don't see it as pulling down, I see it as a way to be able to meet the obligations the city has. Which they obviously can't the way things were.

Hmm. The city can't meet its legally agreed to obligations? Who's fault is that?

My guess would be the politicians, mostly democrats, who agreed to those obligations, and also the unions, mostly public, who own them. Surely you are aware of what's been going on in California for the last several decades.

And it was Republicans who ran the country into the ground and are now pushing for austerity measures, which is why cities like San Diego suddenly "can't meet obligations".

Maybe conservatives would like to stop attacking workers for a moment and try helping us find ways to meet our obligations.

 

[Wiseacre]

Hmm. The city can't meet its legally agreed to obligations? Who's fault is that?

My guess would be the politicians, mostly democrats, who agreed to those obligations, and also the unions, mostly public, who own them. Surely you are aware of what's been going on in California for the last several decades.

And it was Republicans who ran the country into the ground and are now pushing for austerity measures, which is why cities like San Diego suddenly "can't meet obligations".

Maybe conservatives would like to stop attacking workers for a moment and try helping us find ways to meet our obligations.

Seriously man? You're trying to blame the GOP for the problems in California? Or in San Diego and San Jose? That's really out there.