3706.

So politicians raid the pension fund and then complain there's no money there?  And the solution is to pay less money to people who spent their life working for those benefits?  I've got a better idea:  Let's go back and make the politicians who raided the funds personally responsible.  I don't know about the rest of you, but I like paying a bit more for the best cops and firefighters.

Of course the real plan is to break the system, complain the system doesn't work, then privatize it and pay more for less service.

Oh, and if you're wondering why politicians won't "stand up" to unions, it's because union people are Americans who vote.  So maybe a better way of phrasing that is:  few in Sacramento are willing to stand up to constituents who insist that the pensions they were promised are their due.

Sounds like there are soon to be efforts to make gov't jobs "jobs Americans won't do".

Marylee wrote-

"Public employee unions and the elected officials who cozy up to them have, for years, denied the growing crisis that is California's ponderous pension system."

The public employees are the state's civil servants. What is the crisis? The returns for this past year for the California civil servants set records for highest percentage growth for both CALSTRS and CALPERS. The people in the United States currently are the least taxed citizens in the industrialized world, which might be one reason so much infrastructure is failing, and why understaffed governmental departments at all levels cannot keep pace with this society's needs. I might add that allowing business to oversee business has become such a failure that our health and safety is under assault through inadequate regulations and checks.  

Why use pejorative terms like "cozy" to describe dialogs between public government agencies, their public collective bargaining instrument and our publicly elected officials? All compensation and retirement contracts between civil servants and government are public record and arrived at in negotiations with elected representatives. You make it sound as though these contracts were arrived through some smoky back-room deal in the middle of the night. You also make it sound like we the people cannot vote out Supervisors or other local and state officials who do not fairly negotiate in the best interest of the public. You also make it sound as though civil servants, and any pensioner, should not get what they have in good faith won at the bargaining table.

As usual, your column is a miserable exercise in distortion and dishonesty espousing anti-union rhetoric at the expense of all public employees. Does Roger Ailes just mail you stuff to type?

 

I had posted this on another thread, but it seems more appropriate here:

I am curious about a couple of things:

  - If retirement benefits were to become legislated, that would remove a bargaining chip that both sides currently have available to use.  Mighten't that hurt the municipality/government entity more than it would the employee unions, because then the primary negotiating item becomes wages?  Most public employees are already paid less than their private sector counterparts, so I would expect when it comes time to renew contracts, they would want to bring their wages closer to those in the private sector, or at least those in other counties.  It's been documented that Kern pays a lot less than counties with similar demographics.

  - If, as a result of not being able to negotiate future benefits (pensions) current benefits (wages) are increased -- they'd almost have to be to entice workers to come to Kern, not to mention stay at their jobs -- then would more be paid out in retirement later? 

 I think it should be remembered that a lot of public sector employees made wage concessions in the '90s when times were tighter in exchange for the future retirement benefits.  The employees aren't to be blamed for any possible financial problems that loom.  Where was the fiscal responsibility of those at the city/county/state level who should have been making retirement benefit contributions, but didn't keep up with them thinking that the booming technology sector stocks would carry them through?

 

 

So now Mary Steals Lori's editorial.  What's the world coming to?

TheColorNine, that's a fine set of questions.  It's amazing that people don't understand that part of the reason the pensions are so good is that it is a way for the state to pay over time rather than upfront.

Maybe we need to start first with the retirement packages for the Legislatures. They could become real leaders and set the example for all those public employees by first raising their own retirementt age and cutting their own retirement benefits.

3721.

3725

How about the head of the water district that 'retired'-got his pension WITH the perks..THEN was hired back on 'temp' and collecting ANOTHER paycheck...yup..welcome to Bakersfield-ONLY in Bakersfield

Wow, what a misunderstanding of the pension plan the writer has. The pension is the way the government gets by  paying a below market wage.  The county of Kern for those who don't know are already recruiting workers from other country's to fill jobs that are being paid at a wage unsuitable for American workers.  If you don't believe me look at what is going on at KMC and the nurses. There has been a lot of talk about a shortage of nurses, but that is not the truth, there is only a shortage of nurses willing to work for below the markets pay scale.  There's a shortage of nurses like there's a shortage of low-paid farmworkers or maintenance staff or child care providers or personal assistive personnel. With any job, if there's a "shortage" it's usually because there aren't enough incentives for local people to CHOOSE that work or to train in that field... often because of low pay that can be compounded by harsh working conditions. Increased pay alone only goes so far as we see in nursing. If there's a shortage that requires the importation of staff, that should only be a temporary measure just until we can train up enough people locally. However, if the work still doesn't have enough incentives, the so-called shortage will continue. How to stop the cycle? Make the work more appealing through higher wages and better work conditions. But that costs money - which will impact us all in higher costs for services and good. There aren't easy answers, but to lower one area of the benefit package and not expect you have to raise the other  area to maintain your staff is irresponsible.  So if your government is unwilling to pay the going wage for qualified workers and is importing  form other country's to fill their positions that that can't fill locally, at that pay scale, what do you think the private industry should do?  I know we have jobs in the farm labor field that need to be done, and we are only willing to pay a low wage for as the farmers just wont pay the money to get us out in the field, so we import workers legally and illegally.  So the county of Kern is paying the lowest wage and no one from here is willing to work at that wage then they themselves are hiring  outside labor, is that what you want form your government? Everyone says buy American, support America, but then they want our government to be run by foreign workers, I don't think so. W e can't import workers for all the jobs, as WE AMERICANS NEED SOME JOBS, AND I SAY LETS AT LEAST KEEP THE GOVERNMENT ONES. And that means paying for it one way or another, as higher hourly wages and benefits now or over the years in a pension. Either way you have to pay there are no free rides or free labor.

I just hope that when Mrs. Shrider speaks poorly of public employee pensions, she doesn't talk with her mouth full.  After all as she admits, her husband is a retired police officer living on his retirement check.  This is analogous to a person moving to the mountains, building a beautiful log house, fully equipped with knotty pine finishings, then lobbying to shut down logging and saw mills.

Where were the newspaper headlines showing that the Pers rates have dropped for employers for the past couple years? There wasn't this big hullabaloo at the end of the 80's regarding pensions even though the City was paying MORE for pensions then than they are now.  I just think that in certain politcal circles they view public employees as people who can't get a real job, and equivalent to people on public assistance.

CA public penions = CALPERS --- one of the biggest market forces from public sector there is......... and its run pretty well actually................

forget grey davis and how he made the "baby sitters with TV's" people get defined benefit programs as opposed to what most people have which is defined CONTRIBUTION plans..........