Public Sector Workers In Alternate Reality
Dec 5, 2013 Political
The public sector union workers thought they had it made. They worked for years and pensions were established so that when they retired they would get a retirement check. There is nothing inherently wrong with that but as with anything government and union, problems have arisen.
During the boom times unions made deals with politicians about how much of YOUR money they should get (notice YOU are not part of the negotiations) and they made some nice deals. In many of these unions the workers pay little (if anything at all) into their retirement and the government contributes a lot to the fund.
This money has been invested in order to grow but when the economy went bad the funds lost lots of money. Couple this with the usual mismanagement associated with unions and government and a problem emerges.
The funds do not have enough in them to meet obligations. As such many governments are trying to reduce benefit payout or are trying to require workers to pay more toward their pensions (Heaven forbid).
The recent ruling in Detroit’s bankruptcy as well as threats in Illinois have many government workers worried. The pension funds are NOT protected from the bankruptcy.
In Illinois strong consideration is being given to reducing benefits to solve the problem.
I can understand why the workers are upset. They worked all those years and their unions negotiated something for them. Now that is being threatened. People plan on living on certain amounts when they retire and when that is taken away or changed it causes problems. While I understand their plight I also know they cared little about the taxpayer when they were supporting (and demanding) the things the unions negotiated for.
I can put it this way. These folks are concerned that they are being shafted of their money.
I as a taxpayer feel the same way because my money pays them and I did not have a seat at the table.
What does make me laugh is how many of these workers and their union reps act as if they are only asking for what the rest of the workers in America get. Really? Many folks in the private sector do not have retirement plans and those that have them do not have ones as generous as those in the public sector.
But, but, public sector workers accept a lower pay for what they do in order to get a better retirement. That is the claim they make:
…For generations, public employees accepted modest wages for the promise of a secure retirement. Bloomberg
The article is focused on teachers and there is a lot of discussion about how they worked hard for years for less money and paid for things out of their pockets and took care of children so I will focus on teachers.
I will not address the lack of quality education and the low performance of children. Just on the claim that they accept less money for a better retirement.
In Illinois, the place the article discusses, the average salary for a teacher starting out is $36,636 and the overall average is $64,509. Information from teacher portal indicates that Illinois has the fourth highest teacher salary in the nation. It is hard to get an hourly wage because teachers are off in the summer and I do not know what the work hours are for them. But, a regular 40 hour a week job would equate to $17.61/hour to start and $31.01/hour as an overall average.
How many private sector jobs start at those rates? Seventy percent of American wage earners are in the lowest three quintiles of workers and the average income for the middle quintile is $34,738 with a lower average for the other two. So the claim that public sector workers accept less in salary to have a better retirement is smoke and mirrors. The teachers have more time off, receive great health benefits, and have a great retirement plan and receive a salary that puts them in the upper fourth quintile. They have it much better than those in the private sector.
[note]Great teachers are worth their weight in gold and they produce well educated children. However, the system is set up to concentrate more on compensation as less on education.[/note]
Plus, you need an act of Congress to fire them. In the private sector the boss can fire you without all the hassle.
By the way, Rahm Emanuel’s Chicago is in the worst shape pension fund wise and his teachers in that city average $74,839/year (2009).
There are problems all the way around. Too many people on welfare, too much taxpayer money spent on great public sector benefits and not enough folks working. Add the corruption that is always involved and money flow becomes a problem.
[note]Perhaps these unions should demand that welfare get cut instead of their pensions…[/note]
These places are having trouble and they are not particularly happy with the Democrats who courted their votes for decades and paid them off because those Dems are suddenly screwing them over.
As for Republicans, Scott Walker turned a deficit into a surplus and union employees were not fired and only took a small hit.
It sucks for these folks but now maybe they know how taxpayers have felt over the years.
After all, it starts out as OUR money…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
Tags: detroit, illinois, public unions, retirement, salary, under funded
Firefighters, Police, And Teachers Are State Responsibilities
Oct 18, 2011 Political
Whenever progressives discuss the need for stimulus money to further expand upon their bad economic plans they inevitably discuss the impact on the salaries of firefighters, police officers and teachers. They scream to pass the bill because we need to ensure we keep paying these groups of people.
Keep in mind that the bill that allegedly creates jobs is being justified by pointing out that it will pay to continue jobs that are already held by people.
Progressives always point out public safety employees and teachers when they want to pass something and there are two basic reasons for this. The first is that it plays on the fears of people. What happens if we lose firefighters, police officers and teachers? We will not be safe and our kids will not get educated (as if they are right now).
The second reason is based on the first. Once there is fear about losing people in these occupations it is easier to get support for massive spending.
The reality is that the progressives want to pay off public union employees for their support of Democrats. Firefighters, police officers and teachers belong to unions that overwhelmingly support Democrats. The money going to them is part of a huge money laundering operation where government spends billions of dollars that go to public sector unions and then public sector unions send loads of money back to Democrat politicians.
The only people who get screwed are the taxpayers because our money is being laundered through the unions to support Democrats and we have no say in the process.
The federal government does not belong in the business of paying the people in these professions. Firefighters, police officers and teachers work for state or local governments. There are federal employees in these professions and the federal government deals with their pay but for the most part people in these professions belong to a state or local government.
The state or local government hires these folks based upon the needs of that particular entity and it is up to the state or local government to pay these people. If they cannot afford to pay them then they need to reduce the size of the police or fire departments and they need to reduce the number of teachers in the schools. If they want to continue with the numbers they have then they must raise revenue at the state or local level. Let the state and local politicians raise taxes and other revenue and let them deal with the voters at that level.
The federal government does not belong in the business of the states and people who pay federal taxes should not be paying the salaries of state and local firefighters, police officers and teachers.
It is a responsibility that is not part of the powers enumerated for Congress under the US Constitution.
That won’t stop politicians from using our tax dollars to pay for these things (look at Stimulus I) and it won’t stop them from using these job titles as justification for a bill they claim will create jobs.
It is our responsibility to tell these politicians NO to any new Stimulus and it is up to us to tell them they are working outside the limits of their authority.
They want to intimidate you with tough words:
‘The message to the American people and to Congress will be clear,” said principal deputy spokesman Josh Earnest. “Pass the bill this week to protect the job of a North Carolina teacher, or come down here, look her in the eye….” USA Today
But we need to be equally tough. So, if there are any politicians who can’t do what this person says call me and let me know. I will be happy to go to North Carolina (or any other state) and look a teacher (or other public sector employee) in the eye and tell them exactly why they don’t get the money.
Or, you could just send them a copy of this post.
Time to get this under control and put little Barry and his gang of misfit progressives out to pasture…
Cave canem!
Never surrender, never submit.
[tip]If you enjoy what you read consider signing up to receive email notification of new posts. There are several options in the sidebar and I am sure you can find one that suits you. If you prefer, consider adding this site to your favorite feed reader. If you receive emails and wish to stop them follow the instructions included in the email.[/tip]
Tags: firefighters, money laundering, Obama, police, public unions, stimulus, taxes, teachers