[quote=livinincali][quote=CA renter]
This is the part that ticks me off most about the whole anti-union/pro-privatization movement. The unions WERE making concessions throughout this entire period. Many unions even offered to make concessions without being asked, simply because they understood the difficult situation that their employers were in. The media just didn’t report on it because it didn’t fit the agenda of those who want to abolish unions.
This is the same thing as having news outlets go on tirades about the distant outliers, like a single police chief or prison psychiatrist making an absurd amount of money (usually due to incredible amounts of overtime…OR fraud, in which case they are being investigated), while not saying anything about the many union concessions over the years, or explaining how hard Gov. Brown’s reforms are going to hit public employees. The news bias has been very, very one-sided.
BTW, I’ve never heard a “woe is me,” or “it’s not fair” argument coming from the union side. What they have been saying is that they have unfairly used as scapegoats for the economic crisis that was caused by WALL STREET. This totally manufactured crisis has been used by billionaires and big business to push their privatization agenda because the unions are the only obstacle left for them to take out and they knew that this crisis would affect the finances of government entities. They’ve managed to pit Joe Sixpack against the unions (worker against worker) in an effort to divert attention away from themselves and the mess that they created.[/quote]
Really. While some public sector unions did offer concessions it was the various teachers unions across the country that acted hard line and gave all public sector unions a bad name. Did you watch what happened with the SD teachers union over the past year. I suppose you can fault the media for focusing on teacher’s union negotiations but they certainly weren’t offering up major concessions until the last moment.
I personally think people in the public sector for the most part work hard. I think they do a good job in general. I think the defined benefit package is too rich and too risky for the tax payer in general. If the public sector union wants to manage a defined benefit contribution plan where the employees chose to make up the short fall or reduce the benefit I’m fine with that. A defined benefit plan where you can spike your pension payout, where you can retire at 55 and possibly live another 40 years, where you’re protected from inflation via adjustments, is just too good and too risky for the benefit providers. The reality is the current promised pensions likely won’t be paid in full. Maybe in San Diego they will, if all the rich people across the world move here, but many local and state governments will have to violate those promises. The money isn’t there and the citizens aren’t going to accept no services because all the money has to go to services previously rendered.
Deferred compensation is a stupid arrangement. If you can’t pay enough right now to attract qualified people to the position then we can live without the service.[/quote]
Governor Brown’s pension reforms banned pension spiking, increased retirement ages *for current employees,* and increased the employee contributions to 50% of the total costs (from ~0%-9% of a person’s pay to 50% of the total costs is HUGE).
Even before this was happening, many unions had already taken 5-15% pay cuts (a few took much larger cuts), reduced medical benefits, cut positions/taken on more work per person, and many employers placed new hires on a two-tier hybrid pension system that is part defined-benefit, and part defined contribution, etc. One of the biggest losses for unions was the loss of retiree healthcare which was largely phased out in the mid-90s. This was all **before** the reforms.
Funny how it was never really reported on, isn’t it?
