What if we made the wisconson union pay for their own pension funds

[averagewhiteman]

The demand coming from the liberals ,er Unions, might go over easier were it not for the work product funded by tax payer dollars , being so substandard

 

[rhodescholar]

How dare you sir, how dare you I say. How dare you to inject honest facts. Not hpyer, fixedlies soundbites, but facts.

You must know by now that ConJobs, Repugs and Teabaggers hate facts.

Fuckbrain, if you had any intelligence you'd understand that EVERY PENNY of compensation that goes to the public workers, regardless of what it is called - pensions, health care, striaght salary, etc. - ALL comes from the taxpayer.

ALL OF IT.

How one labels the compensation is irrelevent, it is all taxpayer funded, period. Conservatives and tea partiers don't dislike facts, they just don't like brainless liberal/far left monkeys like you...

 

[mnbasketball]

100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente



Would you let them keep their own pensions then?



Guess what they already do.


Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

INteresting story that relates. My brother worked for a school district that, on the average, paid the teachers between $5-8k lower than the other districts in the area. However, their health benefits were 100% covered, something no other district did. The district pointed out that distinction to all new hirees. Well, since then, the teachers have taken on more and more of the co-pays, etc. and are footing (out of pocket) more and more of the health care costs to the point that they are now comparable to the other districts in the area. Has their pay gone up to compensate? Hell no. They've taken cuts and are getting non-pay furlough days this year. And his district has a record surplus of money for "raining days".

NOW THAT IS WHAT A CONSERVATIVE WOULD SAY IS GOOD GOVERNMENT.

Yeah I used to do the bargaining for our group of employees and every time I heard we need from the company like different rules or a way to cut cost meant exactly this, we want to spend less and have more control and we think you should pay for it and give up some of your gains(rights).

Yes and we bargained to get a pension and other benefits. but they would not give up control of health benefits or Pension even though they were given the oppertunity to rid themselves of it's hassell.
The thing I could never understand was why they held so tight to control of the pension and considered it their money even though it went to benefit the workers instead of pay raises. When the markets were going good they never made a payment to the fund in over 15 years, it grew itself and they could count it as an asset.

 

[mnbasketball]

How dare you sir, how dare you I say. How dare you to inject honest facts. Not hpyer, fixedlies soundbites, but facts.

You must know by now that ConJobs, Repugs and Teabaggers hate facts.

Fuckbrain, if you had any intelligence you'd understand that EVERY PENNY of compensation that goes to the public workers, regardless of what it is called - pensions, health care, striaght salary, etc. - ALL comes from the taxpayer.

ALL OF IT.

How one labels the compensation is irrelevent, it is all taxpayer funded, period. Conservatives and tea partiers don't dislike facts, they just don't like brainless liberal/far left monkeys like you...

wow teabagger such words from an IDIOT. Your right the pay and benefits come from the tax payer and it was agreed to be paid in such a manner as using part of the pay to do certain things other than take it in cash. Now to come back and try to somehow blame the workers for the problems of the state and how they funded their obligations is BS.

It would be like you buy a car and getting a service agreement which you paid for as part of the car, only to have me come back three years from now and say hey it's costing us too much for the repairs so we need you to pick up some of the cost that we agreed to provide you.

YOU SIR ARE ONE DUMBASS, and if you want 100,000 workers to do the work you need done, you seem to think it's ntheir fault that you fell on hard times and they suddenly are worth less, and then you havfe the right to inswult them as you ask for their forgiveness of what you made promises about.

 

[Meister]

How dare you sir, how dare you I say. How dare you to inject honest facts. Not hpyer, fixedlies soundbites, but facts.

You must know by now that ConJobs, Repugs and Teabaggers hate facts.

Fuckbrain, if you had any intelligence you'd understand that EVERY PENNY of compensation that goes to the public workers, regardless of what it is called - pensions, health care, striaght salary, etc. - ALL comes from the taxpayer.

ALL OF IT.

How one labels the compensation is irrelevent, it is all taxpayer funded, period. Conservatives and tea partiers don't dislike facts, they just don't like brainless liberal/far left monkeys like you...

wow teabagger such words from an IDIOT. Your right the pay and benefits come from the tax payer and it was agreed to be paid in such a manner as using part of the pay to do certain things other than take it in cash. Now to come back and try to somehow blame the workers for the problems of the state and how they funded their obligations is BS.

It would be like you buy a car and getting a service agreement which you paid for as part of the car, only to have me come back three years from now and say hey it's costing us too much for the repairs so we need you to pick up some of the cost that we agreed to provide you.

YOU SIR ARE ONE DUMBASS, and if you want 100,000 workers to do the work you need done, you seem to think it's ntheir fault that you fell on hard times and they suddenly are worth less, and then you havfe the right to inswult them as you ask for their forgiveness of what you made promises about.

 

[mnbasketball]

Fuckbrain, if you had any intelligence you'd understand that EVERY PENNY of compensation that goes to the public workers, regardless of what it is called - pensions, health care, striaght salary, etc. - ALL comes from the taxpayer.

ALL OF IT.

How one labels the compensation is irrelevent, it is all taxpayer funded, period. Conservatives and tea partiers don't dislike facts, they just don't like brainless liberal/far left monkeys like you...

wow teabagger such words from an IDIOT. Your right the pay and benefits come from the tax payer and it was agreed to be paid in such a manner as using part of the pay to do certain things other than take it in cash. Now to come back and try to somehow blame the workers for the problems of the state and how they funded their obligations is BS.

It would be like you buy a car and getting a service agreement which you paid for as part of the car, only to have me come back three years from now and say hey it's costing us too much for the repairs so we need you to pick up some of the cost that we agreed to provide you.

YOU SIR ARE ONE DUMBASS, and if you want 100,000 workers to do the work you need done, you seem to think it's their fault that you fell on hard times and they suddenly are worth less, and then you have the right to insult them as you ask for their forgiveness of what you made promises about.

 

[mnbasketball]

The demand coming from the liberals ,er Unions, might go over easier were it not for the work product funded by tax payer dollars , being so substandard

I'm so sick and tired of your same old right wing tea bagging conservative BS.

Your just like your daddy Rush but the difference is he at least makes 50 million a year telling everyone how they are overpaid and under worked.

Just because one of you says something doesn't mean that it now become the truth and you can now discuss it as fact when we all know its conservative BS.


The truth is getting the middle class to fight over what some other middle class people get is just distraction to the real ills we have. Greed, fraud, and laws that protect those at the top that allows them to use their wealth in a manner that 80% of can't and will never be able to. So one group of workers makes 20% more than another group, big fucking deal esp since the group thats willing to work for less must not think they are worth more.

the top ceo's in the country average 550 times what their employees make, maybe thats what the governors idea is, if he can cut wages he might get a raise.

Oh by the way the article admits to the fact that age of worker and educational backgrounds were not taken into account.

 

[mnbasketball]

I worked as a grinder Operator at one company. I used the salary and wage survey to see what a grinder op. should be paid. It said about 4.00 an hr less that what I was paid and I thought, hell I am getting paid well.
Then I read dow to what a grinder op was, he picked up a bumber after it was cromed and he ground off the excess with a hand grinder.
I ground perscision pards that held 2/10,000 of an inch in size and 1/10,000 in straightness and 50 millionths in roundness. not all jobs with the same title are the same.

 

[rhodescholar]

wow teabagger such words from an IDIOT. Your right the pay and benefits come from the tax payer and it was agreed to be paid in such a manner as using part of the pay to do certain things other than take it in cash. Now to come back and try to somehow blame the workers for the problems of the state and how they funded their obligations is BS.

#1- the contracts were NOT negotiated in good faith to begin with, since my interests as a taxpayer were never represented or protected

#2-the inflating costs of the health benefits and pensions WERE NEVER NEGOTIATED you moron.

The cost of living adjustments made to pensions along with the increasing, inflating health benefits for retirees was in no way shape or form covered by the tiny contributions of current public workers - it is the TAXPAYER who must foot the ever increasing bill to cover them.

THAT is why these 2 items are consuming ever larger portions - almost the entire budget - of some cities at this point, and will soon register in the hundreds of billions in annual payments to retirees. THEIR CONTRIBUTIONS DO NOT COME EVEN CLOSE to these huge amounts.

It would be like you buy a car and getting a service agreement which you paid for as part of the car, only to have me come back three years from now and say hey it's costing us too much for the repairs so we need you to pick up some of the cost that we agreed to provide you.

The costs for 3 years of service can be reasonably calculated and accounted for, try running 3% inflation on annual pension payments starting at $60,000/year for 35 years, and tell me they are comparable

YOU SIR ARE ONE DUMBASS, and if you want 100,000 workers to do the work you need done, you seem to think it's their fault that you fell on hard times and they suddenly are worth less, and then you have the right to insult them as you ask for their forgiveness of what you made promises about.

What is this tripe? It is noted that public employee union collective bargaining is a very recent phenomenon, yet only took about 30-40 years to start bankrupting cities/states.

Did someone who worked for a municipality think that they get to work for 20 years at a job with infinite job security and lavish benefits - with a salary exceeding a similar one in the private sector - and think they can collect an inflating pension and set of benefits for TWICE the amount of time they worked? Is that the absurd, wishful dream they expected?

There is no justification for their outsize, obscene benefits, and as a taxpayer, I am no longer willing to fund them. As a voter, I have spoken, and I demand and expect my elected officials to carry out the mandate of reduced government and salaries/benefits for public employees.

If they are unwilling to do so, I will use the courts and increasingly aggressive demonstrations, including forcing legal changes such as term limits and CBA-elimination through the courts, perhaps at the federal level.

The facts are with my side, the numbers are there for all to see, as cities and states' budgets are being buried under pension/benefit payouts that cannot be sustained.

 

[rhodescholar]

I'm so sick and tired of your same old right wing tea bagging conservative BS.

Stop reading moveon.org and other far left nonsense. Try and think for yourself.

Your just like your daddy Rush but the difference is he at least makes 50 million a year telling everyone how they are overpaid and under worked.

Don't like Rush.

Just because one of you says something doesn't mean that it now become the truth and you can now discuss it as fact when we all know its conservative BS.

Such as?

The truth is getting the middle class to fight over what some other middle class people get is just distraction to the real ills we have. Greed, fraud, and laws that protect those at the top that allows them to use their wealth in a manner that 80% of can't and will never be able to. So one group of workers makes 20% more than another group, big fucking deal esp since the group thats willing to work for less must not think they are worth more.

#1-public unions have NOTHING to do with the middle class
#2-I completely support private sector unions
#3-these are separate issues - those who operate outside the law will eventually be caught and punished

the top ceo's in the country average 550 times what their employees make, maybe thats what the governors idea is, if he can cut wages he might get a raise.

This is an issue, but beyond the scope of the thread dealing with public employees. Regardless of what thinks of private sector CEOs and their salaries - the benefits for public union employees are unsustainable, and must and will be reduced. Even the NY Times agrees:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/06/opinion/06sun1.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

State Workers and N.Y.’s Fiscal Crisis
March 5, 2011

"At a time when public school students are being forced into ever more crowded classrooms, and poor families will lose state medical benefits, New York State is paying 10 times more for state employees’ pensions than it did just a decade ago.

That huge increase is largely because of Albany’s outsized generosity to the state’s powerful employees’ unions in the early years of the last decade, made worse when the recession pushed down pension fund earnings, forcing the state to make up the difference."

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

Good for you .

why should you be allowed to take your employees benifits away because of your profit line?

Who said an employer is obligated to give you any benefits at all? Fringe benefits are in incentive to attract the best and brightest. They aren't required. If you don't like the benefits you do or do not receive, then find another job.

 

[Midnight Marauder]

Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash.

It's still ALL taxpayer monies, no matter how many shell games you want to play with it.

 

[thereisnospoon]

When your employer gives the money for your 401k to one of his suppliers in the form of a discount because he likes them is that fair?


Should he have any contractural right to keep paying your benifits and 401 K matching he promised you?



Or can should he by law have the right to just strip you of those parts of your agreed upon compensation?

When my neighbor who was an employee for Sprint became an employee( through a buyout) of Ericsson, the Sprint pension was wiped out and all workers pension "banks" were converted to 401k's with NO matching funds from the company..
So the answer to your question is "yes". The employer may at any time terminate the benefits they so choose.
BTW, in the case of the Wisconsin workers, their agreement is with the union. Not with the taxpayers. The employer( state) has the right to terminate the agreement if certain conditions prevail. Such as in this case, not enough money to fund the benefits.
The problem here is the union has had virtual carte blanche to get any kind of deal they wanted because the union uses it's power to support and insure politicians friendly to the unions are elected to office.
The taxpayers changed that. They fired those who were not looking out for the interests of all taxpayers, but instead were pro-union puppets.
Once again, no public employee should have better wages and benefits than those they serve.

 

[thereisnospoon]

Why does being a public sector worker make you a second class citizen with fewer working rights?

Simple...Public worker wages and benefits are finally being challenged as excessive. The politicians who for decades were there to protect those wages and benefits are no longer in office.
No one is stating ALL benefits should be removed. That is absurd.
Removing the right to negotiate excessive wages and benefits, those far and away above market rates found in the private sector is what is being challenged.
You libs are great at championing "equality". Why is it you cannot accept the same for public workers?

 

[thereisnospoon]

So now you have employees who cant afford to go to the Dr?


I guess even your employees benifited from the health care bill huh?

Do you hate them having that benifit?

I am not aware of any employee who cannot go to a Dr. They don't pay my premium and I don't pay theirs.

I believe all of my employees have private coverage, so I doubt they have seen any benefit from the Law. I am not aware of any employee who supports the Law, and I have several dozen employees. They are paid fairly, and well.

My business would not be where it is without my employees. My employees would not be where they are without my business. We're all fine with that arrangement, even if you aren't.

According to the pro union left...first, you run a scab company. second, you screw your employees. Third, you are a greedy crook because you do not provide health insurance and pensions you "owe" your workers.
That is the kind of rhetoric we see from the entitled Left.

 

[whitehall]

The correct wording is "contribute toward" not "pay for". Truth matters

 

[thereisnospoon]

This is going to make TM's head explode:

When I made the decision to cancel our group policy, my insurance premiums went down. WAY down. Under our corporate policy, I had lesser benefits, and a higher premium than I do as an individual holding a private, family policy. My benefits are actually slightly better now, even though I am personally paying LESS money.

Ironically, when it became cost ineffective to carry a corporate policy, my only option was to indirectly increase my personal income.

Only in America!!!!

Individual health insurance policies are easy to get and not that expensive if you're 25 years old with no history of health problems. But add 25 years, ulcers and high blood pressure, a wife recovering from breast cancer and two kids. It's a whole different story.

Precisely why the taxpayers of Wisconsin can no longer afford the type of formula used in calculating the public worker's benefit contributions.

 

[Annie]

100 cents of every dollar for WI state workers' pensions paid for by the state workers themselves | Corrente



Would you let them keep their own pensions then?



Guess what they already do.




Out of every dollar that funds Wisconsin' s pension and health insurance plans for state workers, 100 cents comes from the state workers.

How can that be? Because the "contributions" consist of money that employees chose to take as deferred wages – as pensions when they retire – rather than take immediately in cash. The same is true with the health care plan. If this were not so a serious crime would be taking place, the gift of public funds rather than payment for services.

INteresting story that relates. My brother worked for a school district that, on the average, paid the teachers between $5-8k lower than the other districts in the area. However, their health benefits were 100% covered, something no other district did. The district pointed out that distinction to all new hirees. Well, since then, the teachers have taken on more and more of the co-pays, etc. and are footing (out of pocket) more and more of the health care costs to the point that they are now comparable to the other districts in the area. Has their pay gone up to compensate? Hell no. They've taken cuts and are getting non-pay furlough days this year. And his district has a record surplus of money for "raining days".

What? A school district with a 'rainy day' fund? How preposterous! You mean if an event such as the state not being able to provide all the funds promised the district, the district would have the funds to keep all staff and the schools running? What a concept!

 

[Charles_Main]

tax.com: Really Bad Reporting in Wisconsin: Who 'Contributes' to Public Workers' Pensions?

Source article for the OP's post.

After reading it, all this article does is play word games with the pension plans shown. The basic premise is that state employee compensation is a single negotiated package. In that negotiation is the base salary of the worker, the cost of health care, and the cost of the pension. The article's premise is that since the pension contribution is part of the compenstation package, it is therefore the employee's money, and therefore they fund thier own pension.

While true on the surface, the article ignores several points. Point 1 is that all the money comes from the taxpayer, as the employee works for the government, and the government is paid for by taxes. Point 2 is that it does not really go into the breakdowns of how much the splits are.

There is also no mention of how solvent the pension plan is based upon this system, and if the state is required to make contributions above and beyond those mandated by the contracts.

Yep, TM is engaging in word Games. Because they call it compensation he wants Us to believe that means it is not our money going into the Pensions, it belongs to the Workers.

Fact is, ever dime they make in wages, and Benefits, is Tax Dollars. Plain and simple.

 

[thereisnospoon]

How dare you sir, how dare you I say. How dare you to inject honest facts. Not hpyer, fixedlies soundbites, but facts.

You must know by now that ConJobs, Repugs and Teabaggers hate facts.

Fuckbrain, if you had any intelligence you'd understand that EVERY PENNY of compensation that goes to the public workers, regardless of what it is called - pensions, health care, striaght salary, etc. - ALL comes from the taxpayer.

ALL OF IT.

How one labels the compensation is irrelevent, it is all taxpayer funded, period. Conservatives and tea partiers don't dislike facts, they just don't like brainless liberal/far left monkeys like you...

wow teabagger such words from an IDIOT. Your right the pay and benefits come from the tax payer and it was agreed to be paid in such a manner as using part of the pay to do certain things other than take it in cash. Now to come back and try to somehow blame the workers for the problems of the state and how they funded their obligations is BS.

It would be like you buy a car and getting a service agreement which you paid for as part of the car, only to have me come back three years from now and say hey it's costing us too much for the repairs so we need you to pick up some of the cost that we agreed to provide you.

YOU SIR ARE ONE DUMBASS, and if you want 100,000 workers to do the work you need done, you seem to think it's ntheir fault that you fell on hard times and they suddenly are worth less, and then you havfe the right to inswult them as you ask for their forgiveness of what you made promises about.

Wrong....if an employer offers benefits to his/her workers that is contingent on the employer having the resources to pay for said benefits.
Here lies the issue with Wisconsin and other states where public employees are unionized. These states can no longer afford to sustain cadillac benefits. The benefits are unsustainable because the states simply cannot go on increasing taxes year after year to fund them. Not only that, in these states politicians that protected the unions are no longer in office to rubber stamp every new contract.