[quote=EconProf]This thread has had a lot of back and forth about little details about public employee pensions. But there are several well-established realities that all sides ought to agree on which point to a grossly unfair system that will only get worse.
It is well known that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector. Remember that total compensation includes ALL fringe benefits: medical, retirement, vacation days off, etc., plus the smaller likelihood for getting fired for poor performance. And fire and police personnel are good at gaming the system to enhance their benefits with pseudo disability claims, racking up overtime in their final year, etc. Those same public safety workers have convinced the public that their jobs are dangerous, even though the mortality rates for a host of other occupations are far greater. Construction workers, fishermen, farmers, taxi-drivers, convenience store clerks face far more danger and higher on-the-job deaths. And on top of it all, the latter workers retire in their 60’s in order to pay taxes to support the public safety workers retiring in their 50’s.
Let’s remember these obvious realities and not get so bogged down in little details. Government pension expenses in cities, counties, and states are exploding and squeezing out other needed government goods and services.[/quote]
Econprof, are you really an economics professor? After all of the false statements you’ve made in various threads — teachers don’t like unions, privatization saves money, etc., etc. — I have to question this. You simply spout right-wing propaganda, and when asked for any kind of data to back up your points, you disappear. It’s happened on numerous occasions.
As for your claim that public sector employees have total compensation that far exceeds similar positions in the private sector, we’ve already covered that, too.
[quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=CA renter][quote=ocrenter][quote=sdrealtor]But if you perform below average you should fall behind. Its the private sectors way of showing you where the door is without getting sued.[/quote]
ultimately that’s the downfall of the public sector. the pay increases are all set in stone, regardless of performance.[/quote]
I’m pretty familiar with a number of public employers and their compensation numbers. Of the ones I’m familiar with, almost all have had their compensation frozen or seen net decreases in total compensation since about 2008. No net raises in the vast majority of cases. Their compensation has gone down in real terms, and in many cases, in nominal terms.[/quote]
But that’s looking at a short term deviation from the norm secondary to budgetary crisis at all levels of government. Overall, the government employees are significantly overpaid.
“Comparing private and public sector data
Compensation cost levels in state and local government should not be directly compared with levels in
private industry. Differences between these sectors stem from factors such as variation in work
activities and occupational structures. Manufacturing and sales, for example, make up a large part of
private industry work activities but are rare in state and local government. Professional and
administrative support occupations (including teachers) account for two-thirds of the state and local
government workforce, compared with one-half of private industry.”
——————
Here are some articles and studies regarding compensation in the public vs. private sectors:
One comment I have to make about the higher pay for the jobs with fewer degree requirements — many of which are public safety jobs — there are no similar jobs in the private sector with which to compare them.
Not only that, but they mention the much lower turnover rate in many public sectors jobs; this is very important to public employers. The (necessarily) bureaucratic hiring process and extensive initial, and ongoing, training required for these employees is VERY expensive. They cannot afford to have high turnover rates. IMHO, even if they were to go to defined contribution plans (as many suggest), I don’t think they’d end up saving very much (anything?) in the long run. One of the main reasons people are attracted to these jobs is the benefits packages. Take that away, and the turnover rates — and related costs — would be much, much higher.[/quote]
And your claim that public safety workers “game the system” to enhance retirement benefits? While some do (mostly state employees), most cannot. Overtime is NOT calculated in pension benefit formulas for many (most?) municipal employees. New employees are specifically prohibited from using OT to “spike” pensions (and I think it should apply across the board).
“Also specifically excludes certain types of pay from being
reported as pensionable compensation, including, bonuses, overtime, pay for additional
services outside normal working hours, cash payouts for unused leave (vacation, annual,
sick leave, CTO, etc.,), and severance pay, among others.”
And those public safety workers are not just being paid because of the dangerous nature of their jobs (and they are dangerous; cops are in the top 10, firefighters in the top 15), they are also being paid for the skill set and responsibilities (HUGE liabilities…witness the Ferguson issue…where a split-second decision can easily change the rest of your life) inherent with those jobs.
