OT: Public Employee Unions Attack the City of San Diego/Prop B

[livinincali]

It certainly looks like the public unions will win in the courtroom on prop B. State law concerning collective bargaining seems to trump the proposition city voters passed. Of course with that said if the public unions ignore the will of the voters they could face some wrath down the line. If you really piss off the voters it wouldn’t surprise me to see an attack on collective bargaining at the state level.

In my eyes the problem is defined benefit plans where you assume an above market risk free rate of return where the tax payer makes up the loss. Even in the rare event where the risk pays off the tax payer doesn’t get any benefit and instead the public sector employee gets an increase in benefits based on the better than average return.

If the unions members want to set up a defined benefit plan where they bare the risk that’s fine but right now they get to gamble on the risk curve and then force somebody else to make up the losses. Of course we all know what’s going to happen in the future. It will be easy to throw that small minority of the beneficiaries under the bus when the funds run out whether it’s legal or not.

[sdduuuude]

[quote=CA renter]The entitlement culture of government contractors/the privatization movement is unreal.[/quote]

Pot calling the kettle black on that one.

Unions & gov contractors = same thing.

[CA renter]

[quote=sdduuuude][quote=CA renter]The entitlement culture of government contractors/the privatization movement is unreal.[/quote]

Pot calling the kettle black on that one.

Unions & gov contractors = same thing.[/quote]

No, they’re not. As direct government employees, unions and union members are more accountable (that’s why the govt outsources things to the private sector when they want to skirt existing laws), and everything about them is transparent; whether or not Joe Sixpack avails himself of all of the available public information is another matter. Additionally, middle-class public sector jobs that pay a living wage and have decent benefits are open to the public, and any qualified applicant will eventually get a job if he/she applies him/herself. The decent jobs offered by the privatization movement will usually be available only to those who are fairly well connected.

Repeating this, for those who still do not get it:

[quote=CA renter]Just so everybody understands, the “anti-union” propaganda is not being pushed by taxpayer advocates, and nothing that’s being proposed would result in lower taxes for taxpayer Joe Sixpack. The agenda is being pushed by the privatization movement, and their goal is not to reduce taxes for average Americans, but to privatize all public assets, resources, and cash flows…and further grow the income/wealth gap in this country. The private market has NOT lived up to the hype that they provide superior (or even similar quality) services for less (or even the same amount of) money. What they DO succeed at is eliminating middle-class, living-wage jobs from the economy and replacing them with low-wage jobs with no benefits, while creating a handful of “C-suite” positions in the private industry where the parasites can (individually) earn millions of dollars per year in taxpayer-paid compensation.

That is the goal of the privatization movement and the very wealthy people who are financing it, and the Lincoln Club is one of their shills.

The privatization movement has been privatizing more and more goods and services over the past few decades…have your taxes gone down (or service gone up) as a result?

Unions are the only obstacle standing in their way, and that’s why you’re hearing so much about the “evil” public sector unions the past few years. The privatization movement won’t let this economic crisis (caused 100% by those in the financial sector, NOT union workers) go to waste. If they weaken and eliminate the unions, they will own what little is left of this country, lock, stock, and barrel.

—————–

Lincoln Club officers:

While I can’t say for sure that these are the same people (just doing searches of their names), it’s a good guess, since they are all executives in San Diego, and (surprise, surprise) they all work in the FIRE sector.

1. Steve Williams – Chairman

Steve Williams, Partner, co-founded SENTRE Partners in 1989. Steve focuses on new clients, new concepts and new ideas. He developed a relationship with GE Pension Trust, which together with SENTRE Partners has become a major stakeholder in downtown San Diego. Steve also co-founded Vesta with Lorenzo Berho. Incorporated in 1997, Vesta is a Mexican industrial real estate fund, with approximately 8 million square feet of leased industrial properties located throughout Mexico.

Steve is a co-founder of Bandwidth Now which transforms commercial buildings into “next gen” environments, treating bandwidth as a utility and Wi-Fi as an amenity using its patent pending Building Optical Network (BON). Bandwidth Now and SENTRE were nominated by Intel for the Computerworld Honors Program’s 21st Century Achievement Award. Steve was formerly a partner with Trammell Crow Company, where he was responsible for the San Diego division. Prior to that, he was an investment salesman for Coldwell Banker in their Santa Ana office. Steve began his career as a certified public accountant with Arthur Young and Co.

Steve is a grandson of Arthur Banker, co-founder of Coldwell Banker (and now CB Richard Ellis).

http://www.sentre.com/bios/sbwilliams

2. Perry Dealy – Vice Chairman

Dealy Development, Inc.

Since 1992, Dealy Development, Inc. (DDI) is a full-service Real Estate Developer & Development Management Firm. DDI is experienced in large-scale, mixed-use, complex, and challenging to entitle public and private projects.

http://www.dealydev.com/

3. Bill Lynch – Vice Chairman

Bill joined ProFinance® Associates, Inc. in February 1999 to service and assist clients in arranging various forms of equity and debt financing as
well as facilitating M&A while focusing on service businesses in the Southwestern United States and security businesses nationally. He serves on
the Board for MIT Enterprise Forum San Diego. Bill is a registered representative with the National Association of Securities Dealers.

http://www.profinance.com/Biographies.html

…

Yep, developers, RE shills and “consultants”, and peddlers of financial services…just the sort of people you’d expect to be so concerned about Joe Sixpack’s tax bill. [/sarcasm][/quote]

[CA renter]

[quote=livinincali]It certainly looks like the public unions will win in the courtroom on prop B. State law concerning collective bargaining seems to trump the proposition city voters passed. Of course with that said if the public unions ignore the will of the voters they could face some wrath down the line. If you really piss off the voters it wouldn’t surprise me to see an attack on collective bargaining at the state level.

In my eyes the problem is defined benefit plans where you assume an above market risk free rate of return where the tax payer makes up the loss. Even in the rare event where the risk pays off the tax payer doesn’t get any benefit and instead the public sector employee gets an increase in benefits based on the better than average return.

If the unions members want to set up a defined benefit plan where they bare the risk that’s fine but right now they get to gamble on the risk curve and then force somebody else to make up the losses. Of course we all know what’s going to happen in the future. It will be easy to throw that small minority of the beneficiaries under the bus when the funds run out whether it’s legal or not.[/quote]

Not true. When the investment returns outpace expectations, contribution rates go down. This tends to happen at the same time that tax revenues are at their highest, too, giving public employers a massive influx of new/unexpected money to spend. That leaves more money for other projects, tax cuts (like when the extra taxes on auto registration was repealed, or when Prop 13 is left untouched), and savings.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/08/news/mn-47602

[CA renter]

[quote=ctr70]Have not heard a good argument yet with what is wrong with simplifying all public employee retirement programs and just changing them all to employee funded 401k plans just like everyone in the private sector gets. Done, over, end of story.[/quote]

1. It’s illegal to roll back vested benefits for public employees in the state of California.

2. Trying to force it would result in legal battles that would last for many, many years (probably decades), and probably would end up costing even more than the benefits, themselves.

3. Unlike many jobs in the private sector, the recruitment and training expenses for many public sector jobs (especially for safety positions) are very, very high, and they require applicants with exceptionally good character and specific skill sets/characteristics because of the responsibility and liability involved with these jobs. The public employers save money by having a low turnover rate. Having defined benefit pension plans is the #1 way to lure the best applicants and KEEP them there.

[SK in CV]

[quote=CA renter][quote=livinincali]It certainly looks like the public unions will win in the courtroom on prop B. State law concerning collective bargaining seems to trump the proposition city voters passed. Of course with that said if the public unions ignore the will of the voters they could face some wrath down the line. If you really piss off the voters it wouldn’t surprise me to see an attack on collective bargaining at the state level.

In my eyes the problem is defined benefit plans where you assume an above market risk free rate of return where the tax payer makes up the loss. Even in the rare event where the risk pays off the tax payer doesn’t get any benefit and instead the public sector employee gets an increase in benefits based on the better than average return.

If the unions members want to set up a defined benefit plan where they bare the risk that’s fine but right now they get to gamble on the risk curve and then force somebody else to make up the losses. Of course we all know what’s going to happen in the future. It will be easy to throw that small minority of the beneficiaries under the bus when the funds run out whether it’s legal or not.[/quote]

Not true. When the investment returns outpace expectations, contribution rates go down. This tends to happen at the same time that tax revenues are at their highest, too, giving public employers a massive influx of new/unexpected money to spend. That leaves more money for other projects, tax cuts (like when the extra taxes on auto registration was repealed, or when Prop 13 is left untouched), and savings.

http://articles.latimes.com/1998/may/08/news/mn-47602%5B/quote%5D

I think you missed the most important part that was wrong in the bolded part. Employees never get an increase in benefits solely as a result of better than average returns. That’s the whole idea behind defined benefit plans. Benefits are “defined”, and must be paid irrespective of the return. Only employers (in this case, the public entities) benefit with higher than expected returns. Hence the decade of the 90’s when many municipalities and other public entities made no contributions at all.

[CA renter]

That’s true 99% of the time, SK, but California did indeed increase pension benefits during the stock market bubble.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703315404575250822189252384.html

Of course, they pushed this by saying that the increased benefits would be “free” because stock market valuations always go up, right? 🙁

At the same time, they eliminated pension contributions at most public agencies because they didn’t expect the bubble to burst. Sometimes, you just have to shake your head.

As mentioned in one of my above posts, I’ve been opposed to this increase from day one. I’m the biggest supporter of unions and working people, and advocate for defined benefit pension plans for all full-time workers wherever possible, but there were abuses (not by boots-on-the-ground workers, though, which is why I get ticked off when people start attacking them), and reforms are indeed necessary.

The frustrating this is there are too many people who don’t know anything about how the public sector (and pensions, etc.) operates who are trying to push an agenda that is not designed to save taxpayers money, but to weaken labor and benefit the very few (capitalists, not workers or average taxpayers) at the expense of the many. It’s a shame that Joe Sixpack doesn’t know (or care!) about who is pushing this agenda and why.

[paramount]

[quote=CA renter]

3. Unlike many jobs in the private sector, the recruitment and training expenses for many public sector jobs (especially for safety positions) are very, very high, and they require applicants with exceptionally good character and specific skill sets/characteristics because of the responsibility and liability involved with these jobs. The public employers save money by having a low turnover rate. Having defined benefit pension plans is the #1 way to lure the best applicants and KEEP them there.[/quote]

Here we go again: public employee exceptional-ism.

Give me a break.

I could be a cop immediately.
I could be a firefighter immediately.
I could be a teacher immediately.

And on and on.

I’d bet a 100 cops and a 100 firefighters and a 100 teachers combined could not do my job.

No way.

[CA renter]

[quote=paramount][quote=CA renter]

3. Unlike many jobs in the private sector, the recruitment and training expenses for many public sector jobs (especially for safety positions) are very, very high, and they require applicants with exceptionally good character and specific skill sets/characteristics because of the responsibility and liability involved with these jobs. The public employers save money by having a low turnover rate. Having defined benefit pension plans is the #1 way to lure the best applicants and KEEP them there.[/quote]

Here we go again: public employee exceptional-ism.

Give me a break.

I could be a cop immediately.
I could be a firefighter immediately.
I could be a teacher immediately.

And on and on.

I’d bet a 100 cops and a 100 firefighters and a 100 teachers combined could not do my job.

No way.[/quote]

If you could do it, then you would do it…and you could stop complaining about the “lavish” pensions that you’re not getting.

[spdrun]

Speaking to cops — there are many more dangerous and equally needed occupations. Roofer. Farmer. Builder. Fisherman. Why do cops deserve special treatment or better treatment than those workers?

Teachers and firefighters I actually have the utmost respect for. Firefighting is tough, nasty work. At least on this coast, teachers don’t get paid enough for the crap they put up with, and a good teacher who can inspire students is worth their weight in gold.

[paramount]

[quote=CA renter]

If you could do it, then you would do it…and you could stop complaining about the “lavish” pensions that you’re not getting.[/quote]

No, I would not.

I never wanted to feed at the trough like a gov’t worker.

I always wanted to be a productive citizen standing on my own 2 feet.

At it’s core society moves along because of productive citizens who create and innovate.

[CA renter]

Paramount,

As a government contractor, you are no less “feeding at the trough” than other public workers. Get over yourself.

Society moves along primarily because of the social, physical, military, and legal infrastructure put in place and maintained by the government. You can have all the great ideas in the world, but if you don’t have a civilized, functioning society in which to work and distribute your goods and services, then you have nothing.

[paramount]

[quote=CA renter]Paramount,

As a government contractor, you are no less “feeding at the trough” than other public workers. Get over yourself.

Society moves along primarily because of the social, physical, military, and legal infrastructure put in place and maintained by the government. You can have all the great ideas in the world, but if you don’t have a civilized, functioning society in which to work and distribute your goods and services, then you have nothing.[/quote]

CAR: I work on the corporate/indirect side, I’m not a direct charge.

[CA renter]

Doesn’t matter how “direct” or “indirect” it is. If your company is getting money from govt contracts, that is money coming from taxpayers. Chances are, if you’re in the defense industry, the majority of your money is coming directly or indirectly from the government — either the govt is your client, or another company that gets its money from the govt is your client/customer. If you’re working on projects for the govt (now or in the past), you are, or have been, “feeding at the govt trough.”

[paramount]

Most companies have a commercial component as well.

[Author]

Posts