I'd agree with this. If you take a job with a pension, than that pension is part of your compensation. In the private world you have to realize that your company may go bankrupt one day, but working for the government, you consider that a virtual guarantee.
You can fix pension systems without taking away things that were previously promised. You just have to make the future promises much lower.
^ What he said... There are no guarantees...and the govt./us shouldn't be held responsible for bad contracts...a reduction in value or paying at pennies on the dollar is what'll probably happen... ok, but as another poster did, it was their choice to do this...People accept less pay for a variety of reasons...For job security, promise of a pension, whatever, but the fact remains these outstanding liabilities are a huge problem and honestly, pensions will get cut or reduced over time contract or no contract...I'm not sure what the answer is as I understand, but we simply can't afford it.. A pension is great, but its quasi Social Security and everyone knows that program will be ended...
It all reminds me of Poor BOXER from Animal Farm. Rocket River . . . where is the Glue Factory Trucks
If you did a job and the pay that was promised to you doesn't come through, I don't imagine you would just say, "well, the people that were supposed to pay me for work I already did are having a tough time, so it's no biggy if they don't pay me. I'm in favor of changing future pension plans to avoid this, but if somebody did the work, they deserve the pay.
Because that is the will of the American people. It is fair. We have the Pension Guarantee "Board". We have FDIC deposit insurance etc. America has spoken we don't want a heartless libertarian world where in the sick, infirm, the aged, the mentally ill, the unlucky in choice of their bank etc. are left to the vagaries of the market. Why not move to another country if you hate post 1930 America so much?
I agree with you on teacher pensions, but did you read the first story? Something needs to be done about people who retire, take a pension, return to the same job, and then draw a second (or third, etc.) pension. That is abusive. The individual and the local government should be ashamed. I know it is standard practice in HPD to work as much as you can during your last year since your pension is based upon the last year of salary. I do not hold anything against an officer who works within those rules. I am also not bothered by police officers who put in their 20 years, retire, and go to to work for the county in the courts, sheriff's department, or a constable's office, and then earn a second pension. They are just doing what they are allowed to do. However, our local government should not allow gamesmanship and the contracts should be negotiated to avoid the gamesmanship. I also dislike it when a public official gets a large raise just before retiring. I think that happened with one of our police chiefs in the last decade. The whole point was to increase the pension.
Well, yeah. Sounds reasonable. Just avoid the outright silliness of "pension are destroying the country" one of the latest attempts (after illegals, gays, pointed headed intellecutals abortionists etc.) to get the naive to hate unions, government workers their neighbors and not direct their ire to the corporate elite/ financiers who are responsible for their economic anxiety.
Yeah, I'm not in favor of people cheating the system with multiple pensions from the same job. That should be fixed immediately. I have no problem with revoking them on the spot.
You are right that it depends on what you do and where you are, but from what I have seen you don't take much of a paycut if you are just starting in your career. The paycut really comes into play for those coming from the private sector to the governmental sector. You don't make as much for your experience as you could in industry. That has changed somewhat as the economy has tanked, but in general you make less with the government. I left the private sector to take a government job around 1.5 yrs ago, and the only reason that I was ok with the paycut was because the pension was there. If it weren't for that then I would have stayed in the private sector. And on top of that, the pay grade that they brought me in at typically takes someone starting from the first level 15-20 years to get to, and the only reason they started offering salaries in that range was because they couldn't attract anyone from industry with their typical pay levels (a major problem considering how many older govt employees are retiring). I think govt workers are really underpaid if you remove their pensions. I agree that you get additional job security, but that's not enough to make up for having someone work for a promise for their entire lives only to take it away at the end. That's bs. Now taking another govt job after you are getting your pension seems shady. Taking another job in general or working for yourself isn't.
You can certainly stop the bleeding with no affect on those already with pensions. You can stop new state employees from getting defined benefit plans and go forward with only defined contribution plans from now on. It doesn't get rid of the current debt, but eventually all those people die off and you don't have to pay it anymore. Most companies with pensions have moved to these schemes. All the older employees are grandfathered into their pensions, while new employees get the less attractive, yet more financially responsible plan.
