- This topic has 69 replies, 20 voices, and was last updated 13 years ago by
CA renter.
-
AuthorPosts
-
October 24, 2011 at 2:02 PM #731239October 24, 2011 at 3:57 PM #731244
UCGal
ParticipantI’ve got the book “Retirement Heist” by Ellen Schultz on hold at the library. I saw her on Jon Stewart the other day. Some of the figures might surprise the younger folks here.
In 1990 48% of private sector (non goverment) employees had defined benefit retirement plans. Meaning they had pensions.
In other words pensions were common and expected if you worked for a large employer. I had pensions at every job post college.
Now the powers that be are pitting private sector workers against public sector workers – so that no one will have a pension.
I want my pension BACK. Everytime I’m asked to sign something or support something that will take away pensions for local government I point out that I’m for the idea of defined benefits… Used to be a participant in the private sector. I don’t want all employees to be as screwed over as the private sector.
When you hear GM or UA talk about their pension obligations keep in mind that their employee pension funds are FULLY FUNDED. It’s the executive pensions that are underfunded and are the burden.
I agree that the loading to max out the pensions – gaming of the system – should be addressed. Perhaps make it based on a percentage of 10 years of earnings – not 3… exclude bonuses, etc… But don’t eliminate the pensions entirely.
October 24, 2011 at 5:06 PM #731245CA renter
Participant[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2][quote=CA renter][quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]What OWS needs is a message!!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
A BIGGER PICE OF THE PIE NOW !!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
HIGHER WAGES NOW !!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
A BETTER RETIREMENT PLAN NOW !!!
WHAT DO WE WANT !!
EVERYONE GETS A CALPERS ACCOUNT NOW !![/quote]They already have one, and public employees with CalPERS don’t get it. It’s called “Social Security.”
Which brings up another point… If we get rid of the pension obligations for existing public employees (who usually pay more into their pension plans than SS beneficiaries pay into theirs), we’d need to get rid of the Social Security obligations for private sector employees, too. I’m sure all you “taxpayer advocates” would be on board with that. After all, fair is fair, right?[/quote]
If I could collect SS at 55 yes I would say they are even somewhat remotely similar plans but they are not.
OK let’s talk fair, California public employees can put in for and collect SS it seems fair that EVERY California resident should be able to apply and be part of CALPERS as well.[/quote]No, public employees with these pension plans do not participate in Social Security. Even if they had private sector jobs and made SS contributions for the required quarters, their SS benefits are reduced if they get a govt pension.
“If you worked in a job not covered under Social Security; e.g., some federal, state, or local government employment, the pension you get based on that work may reduce your Social Security benefits. Your benefit can be reduced based on one of two provisions.
The first provision, called the Government Pension Offset (GPO), applies only if you receive a government pension and are eligible for Social Security benefits as a spouse or widow(er).
The second provision, called the Windfall Elimination Provision (WEP), affects how we calculate your Social Security retirement or disability benefits if you receive a pension from work not covered by Social Security. We modify the formula used to calculate your benefit amount, giving you a lower Social Security benefit.”
October 24, 2011 at 5:12 PM #731246Participant[quote=UCGal]I’ve got the book “Retirement Heist” by Ellen Schultz on hold at the library. I saw her on Jon Stewart the other day. Some of the figures might surprise the younger folks here.
In 1990 48% of private sector (non goverment) employees had defined benefit retirement plans. Meaning they had pensions.
In other words pensions were common and expected if you worked for a large employer. I had pensions at every job post college.
Now the powers that be are pitting private sector workers against public sector workers – so that no one will have a pension.
I want my pension BACK. Everytime I’m asked to sign something or support something that will take away pensions for local government I point out that I’m for the idea of defined benefits… Used to be a participant in the private sector. I don’t want all employees to be as screwed over as the private sector.
When you hear GM or UA talk about their pension obligations keep in mind that their employee pension funds are FULLY FUNDED. It’s the executive pensions that are underfunded and are the burden.
I agree that the loading to max out the pensions – gaming of the system – should be addressed. Perhaps make it based on a percentage of 10 years of earnings – not 3… exclude bonuses, etc… But don’t eliminate the pensions entirely.[/quote]
Exactly, UCGal. Thank you!
October 24, 2011 at 8:00 PM #731252an
Participant[quote=UCGal]I’ve got the book “Retirement Heist” by Ellen Schultz on hold at the library. I saw her on Jon Stewart the other day. Some of the figures might surprise the younger folks here.
In 1990 48% of private sector (non goverment) employees had defined benefit retirement plans. Meaning they had pensions.
In other words pensions were common and expected if you worked for a large employer. I had pensions at every job post college.
Now the powers that be are pitting private sector workers against public sector workers – so that no one will have a pension.
I want my pension BACK. Everytime I’m asked to sign something or support something that will take away pensions for local government I point out that I’m for the idea of defined benefits… Used to be a participant in the private sector. I don’t want all employees to be as screwed over as the private sector.
When you hear GM or UA talk about their pension obligations keep in mind that their employee pension funds are FULLY FUNDED. It’s the executive pensions that are underfunded and are the burden.
I agree that the loading to max out the pensions – gaming of the system – should be addressed. Perhaps make it based on a percentage of 10 years of earnings – not 3… exclude bonuses, etc… But don’t eliminate the pensions entirely.[/quote]
I think we all can agree that we would love to have pension vs 401(k). Unfortunately, we can’t always get what we want, unless you know some secret to get employers to not cut our pay and reinstate pension. If there’s no way for us to get pension, then why should public employee continue to get pension?October 24, 2011 at 11:15 PM #731265sdrealtor
ParticipantIn 1990 MTV had music videos not dumbass reality shows like Jersey Shore. I want my MTV back too!
October 24, 2011 at 11:22 PM #731266ucodegen
ParticipantWith respect to foreign paralegals, etc.
India’s second language is English, 3rd language for Filipinos (after Tagalog and Spanish).
It is already happening:
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_38/b4001061.htm
Whether this is for better or worse.. dunno.October 25, 2011 at 12:01 AM #731267jstoesz
Participantarguing with these two or three about retirement is pointless. You mine as well play tennis with a wall.
Now if you want to hear their opinons on housing in sd they are far more spot on. Move along. No clarity or agreement will be found here.
BTW, to all who doubt moving away. MN is winning the day in my family! WIth a few more long drives to Southern California (the last one did not go well), We will never live there again! But I will miss the sailing.
October 25, 2011 at 1:02 AM #731271Participant[quote=jstoesz]arguing with these two or three about retirement is pointless. You mine as well play tennis with a wall.
Now if you want to hear their opinons on housing in sd they are far more spot on. Move along. No clarity or agreement will be found here.
BTW, to all who doubt moving away. MN is winning the day in my family! WIth a few more long drives to Southern California (the last one did not go well), We will never live there again! But I will miss the sailing.[/quote]
With all due respect, it’s those of us who are debating on behalf of public pensions who know what we are talking about. I can’t tell you how many times I’ve seen painfully ignorant and totally incorrect claims being made by the “anti-union” crowd.
Some of us have had to correct people multiple times when they’ve made these errors. These are the same incorrect “facts” being pushed by the capitalist-controlled MSM, so we know where the information is coming from (as opposed to someone having actual knowledge and experience WRT public employment and the way their compensation works).
It might be more instructive to hear from those who actually understand how the sytem works and who have experience with how these negotiations work and who understand how we got to have a “pension crisis” in the first place. (Hint: it’s not because of “greedy workers.”)
October 25, 2011 at 1:05 AM #731270Participant[quote=AN][quote=UCGal]I’ve got the book “Retirement Heist” by Ellen Schultz on hold at the library. I saw her on Jon Stewart the other day. Some of the figures might surprise the younger folks here.
In 1990 48% of private sector (non goverment) employees had defined benefit retirement plans. Meaning they had pensions.
In other words pensions were common and expected if you worked for a large employer. I had pensions at every job post college.
Now the powers that be are pitting private sector workers against public sector workers – so that no one will have a pension.
I want my pension BACK. Everytime I’m asked to sign something or support something that will take away pensions for local government I point out that I’m for the idea of defined benefits… Used to be a participant in the private sector. I don’t want all employees to be as screwed over as the private sector.
When you hear GM or UA talk about their pension obligations keep in mind that their employee pension funds are FULLY FUNDED. It’s the executive pensions that are underfunded and are the burden.
I agree that the loading to max out the pensions – gaming of the system – should be addressed. Perhaps make it based on a percentage of 10 years of earnings – not 3… exclude bonuses, etc… But don’t eliminate the pensions entirely.[/quote]
I think we all can agree that we would love to have pension vs 401(k). Unfortunately, we can’t always get what we want, unless you know some secret to get employers to not cut our pay and reinstate pension. If there’s no way for us to get pension, then why should public employee continue to get pension?[/quote]It’s not a secret…join a union. It’s the best possible way to fight for your rights in the workplace.
The “I don’t get it, so why should they” argument is foolish and dangerous. This is they way the PTB are taking us ALL down. Time for all of us to rise up and take back what belongs to the workers in the first place.
October 25, 2011 at 1:27 AM #731272Participant[quote=CA renter]The “I don’t get it, so why should they” argument is foolish and dangerous. This is they way the PTB are taking us ALL down. Time for all of us to rise up and take back what belongs to the workers in the first place.[/quote]
Sorry but I think those who don’t embrace change are the one that’s foolish. We can’t turn back time, we can only adapt to what is and what will be. Those who fail to adapt will be left behind. Like it or not, automation and globalization are here. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.BTW, what do you really think belongs to the workers? A service is only worth what the buyers (employers) are willing to pay for it. A contractor who want me to pay them 2005 wage will not get my money. The only thing I think that belongs to the workers are their brain and energy.
[quote=CA renter]It’s not a secret…join a union. It’s the best possible way to fight for your rights in the workplace.[/quote]
Sorry but I will never join a union. I don’t like collective thinking. The idea of getting paid the same or similar to other coworkers, regardless of how well they perform drives me bonkers. BTW, as someone already stated, public union is greatly different than private union.October 25, 2011 at 2:22 AM #731274Participant[quote=AN][quote=CA renter]The “I don’t get it, so why should they” argument is foolish and dangerous. This is they way the PTB are taking us ALL down. Time for all of us to rise up and take back what belongs to the workers in the first place.[/quote]
Sorry but I think those who don’t embrace change are the one that’s foolish. We can’t turn back time, we can only adapt to what is and what will be. Those who fail to adapt will be left behind. Like it or not, automation and globalization are here. You can’t put the genie back in the bottle.BTW, what do you really think belongs to the workers? A service is only worth what the buyers (employers) are willing to pay for it. A contractor who want me to pay them 2005 wage will not get my money. The only thing I think that belongs to the workers are their brain and energy.
[quote=CA renter]It’s not a secret…join a union. It’s the best possible way to fight for your rights in the workplace.[/quote]
Sorry but I will never join a union. I don’t like collective thinking. The idea of getting paid the same or similar to other coworkers, regardless of how well they perform drives me bonkers. BTW, as someone already stated, public union is greatly different than private union.[/quote]Public and private “businesses” are not different. I don’t care if the entity my money goes to is “public” or “private.” If I’m overpaying (or underpaying) for a particular good or service, that’s all that matters. IMHO, there is far more overcompensation in the private sector (and it’s concentrated at the very top) than in the public sector.
What belongs to the workers? The value of the goods and services created by them. Unfortunately, the way our system works, the “gatekeepers” of money/capital — management, financial elite, well-connected dealmakers, etc. — get to control who gets compensated for the value created by labor…and they make sure their personal cut is far greater than those who’ve earned it.
Just because you belong to a union does not mean that you “think” collectively, nor does it mean that you think everyone should be paid the same regardless of how well they perform.
Belonging to a union means that you **negotiate** with the “gatekeepers” collectively. Since they will ALWAYS have more power than individual workers, the only way for workers to ensure they get their share of the profits is to bargain collectively.
October 25, 2011 at 2:23 AM #731273Participant[quote=eyePod]I’m calling bullshit.
For me, my SS represents about 20% of my income at retirement AND I PAID IN A HELL OF A LOT MORE by any rational measure (fact). Why should a calif. employee get 50% – 80% of his income for life (fact), retiring in his 50s (fact)? That’s just a screwed up state government, not anything to be proud of, not anything I want at all in my state. I get NO pension. Why should the people I pay (with taxes) get ANY pension. They should get 401k and SS just like everybody else.[/quote]FACTS:
Contribution rates for CalPERS members:
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/actuarial-gasb/30-year-rate-hist.pdf
Contribution rates for OASDI (Social Security):
http://www.ssa.gov/policy/docs/statcomps/supplement/2010/2a1-2a7.html#table2.a3
—————————-
More FACTS about how public employees are contributing more and getting less:
“The State reached agreements with some employee unions from August to
November 2010 to include lower retirement benefits for new hires and higher
member contributions for the Bargaining Units ratifying those agreements.
On December 15, 2010, the CalPERS Board of Administration approved new State
employer rates effective between January 1, 2011 and June 30, 2011. These new
rates reflect the higher member contributions agreements made between the State
and various employee unions earlier this year. The new State employer rates are as
follows and will become effective with the first payroll period that ends in January
2011:2011:
MEMBER CATEGORY
EMPLOYER CONTRIBUTION AS A
PERCENTAGE OF COMPENSATION
State Miscellaneous Member First Tier 17.528%
State Miscellaneous Member Second Tier 16.442%
State Industrial Member 14.683%
State Safety Member 15.702%
California Highway Patrol Member 29.956%
Peace Officer/Firefighter Member 28.556%
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/eip-docs/employer/cir-ltrs/2011/200-007-11.pdf
——————–
YOU might not like the fact that some people have fought for their rights as workers, but many other people do (the majority in California, if voter history tells us anything).
I don’t like to pay high prices for goods and services where the majority of the profits goes to executive compensation and shareholder dividends. Contrary to popular myth, we do NOT usually have a choice. WE ALL pay for **everyone’s** compensation — public and private employees, and the investment income for those who “earn” their money that way.
I don’t like to pay for unethical wars that kill tens of thousands of innocent people. I don’t like to pay for environmental clean-ups when corporations flout environmental laws (those “pesky” regulations). I don’t like to pay for the “War on Drugs.” I don’t like to pay all the costs related to illegal immigration. I don’t like to pay the unemployment and/or welfare benefits for those who have been derailed by corporate greed and the off-shoring of decent manufacturing jobs or the hiring of cheap, foreign, illegal labor. I don’t like to pay for “government partnerships” with private entities that, all too often, are the result of “backroom deals” which suck taxpayer money out of the local economy and into the pockets of well-connected “businessmen.” I don’t like to pay for the bailouts (and TARP is just the tip of the iceberg) related to the financial “crisis” — which was the obvious result of all manner of bribery and corruption between Wall Street and Washington D.C. The list goes on and on…
All of the things that I don’t want to pay for are far more egregious than paying a bit toward the pension benefits for teachers, firefighters, cops, etc. (which taxpayers do NOT pay for, BTW — the VAST majority of the benefits — around 75% –comes from investment returns, and the rest is shared between employee and employer contributions).
That’s the price of democracy. We ALL have to pay for things we don’t want to pay for. Oftentimes, we are forced to pay for things that we absolutely despise. But if you can think of a better system, feel free to share your ideas.
October 25, 2011 at 4:00 AM #731276ParticipantMore info about the state paying LESS toward pensions. Facts…
Higher Employee Contributions Reduce State Pension Costs
$170 million decrease due mostly to employees contributing more toward pensionsSACRAMENTO, CA – The State of California will contribute $170 million less for State employee retirement benefits next year due to State employees paying more toward their pensions and lower than expected state payroll and cost-of-living increases.
http://www.calpers.ca.gov/index.jsp?bc=/about/press/pr-2011/may/contrib-st-pension.xml
——————-Mind you, there are some very real problems with the public pension funds. From the “contribution holidays” during the stock market bubble, to the pension boost in ~1999, to the rather optimistic return assumptions (IMHO), to the “pension spiking” (which they are addressing), etc…some things need to be changed, and they ARE being changed. It’s just important that we know how to differentiate between the hype and the facts.
Ever wonder why all the cuts to employee pay/benefits are not being broadcast in the MSM?
It’s because those who are pushing the “anti-union” agenda are NOT taxpayer advocates. They are private entities who are attempting to privatize public assets and revenue streams. The public unions are the main obstacle for them, and THAT is why you’re hearing so much about public employee unions in the news.
Be aware of what you’re supporting, and make sure you understand how YOU will be affected by the changes you’re advocating for. Think about whether or not you will see a reduction in your tax bill. Chances are pretty close to zero that you will benefit from the decimation of public unions. OTOH, if they cut government spending and wages/benefits for public employees, it’s very likely that you will see a reduction in your pay and benefits as well. Since the private sector competes with the public sector for workers, what happens to public sector workers will affect what happens to workers in the private sector.
Remember how they sold you on the “globalization is good” fairy tale (and the idiot sheeple bought it…hook, line, and sinker)? That’s what they’re are doing now with the “unions are bad” propaganda. Know WHO is pushing the anti-union message, and know WHY they are doing it.
October 25, 2011 at 12:41 PM #731294CDMA ENG
ParticipantCAR,
You came back around to the point but for a while you were lumping the argument for private and public in to one argument.
I don’t think that anyone here has the attitude…
[quote]
The “I don’t get it, so why should they” argument is foolish and dangerous. This is they way the PTB are taking us ALL down. Time for all of us to rise up and take back what belongs to the workers in the first place.
[/quote]It’s simply when one large group of people offers its vote in return for direct economic exchange that I have a problem with (as most other people do). You can make your pro-union stance all you want. Thats fine. That is essentially a relationship between you and your employer and the free market will that out.
In the public sector there is no free market force at play and the public union is holding a goverment at ransom.
Want to adovacte public unions? Then I say privatize everything in goverment and let the workers under those private companies unionize. This disconnects the vote from the public officials incintive to rewards groups for thier vote. Lastly lets see how long most of these companies would survive operating like this. Ih this case market forces would again yeild the result.
I would love to have a pension but at the it seems that time has proven this concept non-durable.
CE
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.