The Cost of Retirement Security in America

“The average public sector worker spends about 30 years in the workforce and 30 years retired, and the average private sector worker spends about 40 years in the workforce and 20 years retired.”

Exactly what I am doing. Work 40 years and retired for twenty. The State paid more into my retirement than they did into Social Security. Which was exactly what was agreed to in 1969. So the agreement finally pays off. And I also get Social Security because we both paid into it.

Perfectly fair. A Contract is a Contract.

Nothing unfair or unreasonable here. Just numbers, risk and a lot of time invested.

I did my part and the State did theirs and now I collect.

So I keep hearing, take his money and put it into SS. Hey, I already paid into SS since I was 15 years old. How do you make that work. Oh, take all his money and put it into a 401(k). Private workers fell for that, I didn’t.

Well then, shoot him and take everything he has, because I don’t have it.

Every solution persons come up with for this are only Communist or Fascist or German style Nazi Socialist.

Maybe you have something I would like to have. Keep it, it is yours. Just don’t come and rob me of what I have earned in a fair above the board deal.

Pelye
December 25, 2010 at 5:41 am
“He suddenly realized that the public sector job and pension program he condemned a few years ago is so much more covetable.”

Excellent wording as in “thy shall not covet.”

Precisely what this is all about. “Tough Love” and company made the wrong decision and now they are full of anger. They didn’t take the longer, harder road. And now they are furious because they now know the made a mistake.

So they shout “unfair, unfair” just like the grasshopper screamed to the hard working patient ant as winter snows arrived.

Charles: This is not personal. Public sector employee pensions and benefits and rates of pay are unsustainable. Period. You think you are entitled to collect a pension that is three or four times what you would have made under social security, despite the fact you admit your pay was raised to match rates paid private sector late in your career and your pension was based on that unexpectedly higher final pay. Don’t you think that 90% pension should be calculated on 35% less final pay? Why not? Again, this is not personal, your case is one in millions, and collectively it is something we can’t afford. You claim you worked harder for less money as a public employee. What about all that vacation you took, all those times you didn’t have to work overtime – or were well compensated for it? What about the job security? You claim that private sector workers are angry – of course we are, because you think we’re supposed to pay for your failed pension fund finances through higher taxes. Why wouldn’t that make anyone angry? You seem to think your pension funds are not vulnerable to the same market drops that have decimated 401Ks. This is naive on your part. Not everyone is able to work in the public sector, and not all of us were irresponsible with our cash and our savings. In my opinion, it is your pension funds who constitute the greatest threat to our financial markets. They are pouring billions into more and more risky investments in a desperate attempt to maintain unrealistically high returns. You should consider that public employee pension funds ARE Wall Street. They ARE the brokers and gamblers, not me, not you. On this website I have tried to empathize with the plight of public sector employees who have been promised too much. It would further our dialogue if you would do the same. Merry Christmas.

I needed to add one more comment. The US Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is a joke. The Government has NO obligation to pay off.

California State pensions are in fact covered by the United States Constitution Article One. (Notice the One)

California can not go bankrupt.

In any event, I am somewhat tired of lounging around the house doing nothing. So I go to the senior center and volunteer my time.

One more thing,

I am not a socialist, but it is possible for essentially everyone to work
in the public sector for a time, even in a capitalist country.
(We had such a policy in place in the USA for quite some time)

But, you already know my opinions on mandatory service.

Maybe you could revisit your thoughts on that in a later post.

WOW … I seem to have really hit home with Charles … being attacked when I haven’t even commented.

Good. I honestly believe Charles is angry with me for speaking the truth (a truth he cannot seem to come to terms with)… and clearly (and factually) describing the tsunami of financial pain (and lost necessary services) bearing down on ALL of us.

My work made me aware of this LONG ago. These pensions were NEVER affordable, disguised for a time by extraordinary and extended stock market performance (from 1980-1999) likely never to be repeated, and more recently, accounting trickery that would be illegal in the financial reporting of Private Sector Pensions Plans and OPEB.

MY comments will do nothing to fix these problems (meaning massive outsourcing, a substantial reduction in retiree healthcare and pension growth for FUTURE years of service for CURRENT employees), but (together with others) we ARE getting the attention of the powerful national media (ala the recent CBS 60 Minutes broadcast) that CAN spread the truth concerning the desperate situation we are in, and if nothing else, sufficiently embarrass our elected officials to finally address this situation with REAL solutions … and NOT the ineffective clipping-at-the-edges reforms such as reductions only for new employees.

And Charles ….. my career choice was extraordinary both in satisfaction and monetary rewards (far in excess of yours). Aggressive perhaps, but I’m trying to help. You too blind to see that.

Pelye
December 25, 2010 at 5:41 am
In those dot com years, if you ask a private employee to give up his private company job and 401k for a public sector job and pension program, he would think you are crazy. The underperformance of the private job market and stock market in the recent decade shattered his dream of having a wealthy life as a private sector employee or as a retiree from a private company job. He suddenly realized that the public sector job and pension program he condemned a few years ago is so much more covetable
=============================

LOL..yeah, everyone in CA worked in Silicon Valley in 1999 and made $10 billion, even janitors! I bet your dot com janitor was also your next door neighbor who made $500K a year doing loans after the dot com bust too!

Another trough feeder whopper.

The average CA state state salary is $33K, plus $10K in benefits-and it has remained there, or gone down, since 2000. Average public sector salary is $59K and another $60K in benefits and has risen 40% since 2000, in the case of “public safety” it has risen 97% since 2000.

In addition the pension raises, as high as 50%, were all done retroactively which is illegal, so it is not a valid “contract” as the troughies put it.

Hope the truth helps our GED gov employees see the truth.

Tough Love
December 29, 2010 at 12:08 pm
WOW … I seem to have really hit home with “Charles” … being attacked when I haven’t even commented.

=========================

TL, Charles is a certified public employee milking the system, making the same old same old bogus claims, like the old favorite “we have a CONTRACT”, yet forgets that 50% of his retroactive pension was an illegal gift of public funds.

When he takes a pension haircut – which he will – I hope he comes back here with his favorite talking point claim that he has a “contract”……lol, it kills me how these public employees have such the entitlement mentality and think they’re not going to be taking a hit. Newsflash – $28 billion deficit in a $90 billion operating budget.

WORSE THAN BERNIE MADOFF – COLORADO’S 2010 PENSION THEFT.

What do the Colorado Legislature and Bernie Madoff have in common? Both stole retirement benefits that were earned over many decades.

We have 80-year old widows in Colorado, who worked hard for the State for thirty years, who trusted the State and made their pension contributions like clockwork for decades, only to see their contracted retirement incomes stolen by the State. This money was taken out of their pockets because the State failed to make pension contributions as recommended by their own actuaries, to the tune of $2.7 billion in the last seven years. If the state had responsibly followed the recommendations of its actuaries, the PERA trust funds would now be more than 90 percent funded. The Colorado pension shortfall is primarily a result of legislative action over the last decade, Bill Owens, et al, in 2000 cut contributions and allowed the purchase of cheap service credit, and now the Legislature wants retirees to bear the cost of legislative ineptitude. In testimony to the Legislature even the proponents of the reform bill acknowledged this historic under-funding of the pension. PERA claims that the pension fund was unsustainable without their actions, because the funded ratio of the pension stands at 68 percent. However, the funded ratio of the pension was in the low 50 percent range in the 1970s, and the pension still exists. If a funded ratio of 68 percent this year is unsustainable, how has the pension been sustained since the 1970s when the funded ratio was in the 50s? Not much of a rationale for breaking retiree contracts.

If you find yourself short on funds, you rearrange your spending priorities, or raise additional revenue, YOU DON’T BREAK CONTRACTS! Why would the Colorado Legislature choose to break pension contracts before breaking other contracts, such as construction contracts? How can a state that is in default, that breaks contracts, maintain its credit rating?

The fact that what Colorado did to public sector employees in this year’s pension reform bill (SB1) cannot be done to private sector employee pensions under I.R.C. Section 411(d)(6), says quite a lot about the moral underpinnings of SB1. This federal “anti-cutback rule” for private sector DB plans permits changes to the plans only if the changes operate on a prospective basis.

Colorado PERA’s actions make it clear that the time has come for the inclusion of public defined benefit plans under all Internal Revenue Code Qualified Plan requirements. It is now obvious that allowing the states to regulate public defined benefit plans does not afford equal protection to state and local government employees.

PERA has put it in writing in pension plan materials over the years, that the COLA “is guaranteed”. Members purchasing service credit gave PERA thousands of dollars based on these materials. Money that they could have left in their 401Ks. Expect a new lawsuit from these SB1 victims in the near future. PERA officials now claim that the members cannot rely on their pension plan documents regarding their defined benefits. How egregious is that? You print plan documents for your pension, and later state that the pensioners should not believe the documents you distributed? (This comment was made by PERA officials at a hearing before the JBC.) Note that Goldman Sachs recently paid a half billion dollar settlement to the SEC based on promises made in plan documents. Apparently, some judges believe that plan documents can set forth contractual terms. In any event, the contractual pension language is set forth clearly in Colorado law.

Colorado’s retiree COLA (and those of 36 other states) are “automatic COLAs” as opposed to “ad hoc COLAs” (which exist in about a dozen states and can be periodically altered.) Colorado’s COLA of 3.5 percent is guaranteed in Colorado law in an identical fashion to the base retirement benefit itself. So, the PERA retiree’s claims are based on both statutory language and plan documents. This 3.5 percent COLA won’t look so hot in the coming years if inflation spikes. My guess is that just a handful of members of the Colorado Legislature could tell you the difference between an automatic COLA and an ad hoc COLA.

The Colorado pension reform bill’s (SB1) proponents should accept that states cannot legislate away a debt for work that was completed in the past. What the state is attempting is a claw back of deferred pay. The bill’s sponsors should accept that states cannot avoid their contractual obligations simply because they prefer to spend resources on alternative public services or obligations. I have a contract with my mortgage company. They don’t care if I want to spend my mortgage payment money on a new TV.

Some pension reform advocates argue that public sector pensions should be held to the same standards as private sector pensions. My response to that is “I agree wholeheartedly!” Under the federal Internal Revenue Code reducing accrued pension benefits for private pensions is illegal. If the public sector PERA pension were covered under this I.R.C. law and held to the same standards as private pensions, then last February’s theft of accrued benefits by the Colorado Legislature would not have been attempted. Essentially, federal law provides higher protection to private pensions than it does to public sector pensions. Public pension members are forced to appeal to the courts to prevent the theft of their benefits. (Happening, see saveperacola.com.)

Members of the Legislature pointed out many times, to no avail, that the so called “pension reform bill” was a violation of contracts to which the State was a party. Here are some examples (on tape from the floor debate):

Rep. Lambert: “I have heard from my constituents, as many of you have, that this proposal will breach retiree’s contracts.”
Rep. Swalm: “We’re breaking new territory in this state by trying to reduce the COLA. We’re probably going to get a lawsuit out of that. If we cut the 3.5 percent COLA there will be a lawsuit.
Rep. Gerou said that it is a disservice to the state to rush a bill through when her committee knew that it will go to litigation, and said what we are doing to the retirees is wrong.
Rep. Delgroso said that it is tough for him to tell people that he is going to break their contract.
Senator Harvey said “We have made a commitment. We have a contract with current retirees. That is already in place. Reforms should be made for new hires. We do not have that commitment to new hires.
Senator Spence said “The bill places an unfair burden on retirees.”
Senator Scheffel said “We are breaching our promises to existing retirees.”
Senator Lundberg said “This bill is a deal that was cut before this body met.”

The cavalier abandonment of contractual obligations brings shame to the state of Colorado, aligns Colorado with Third World countries like Bolivia. No person, Republican or Democrat should countenance the breach of contracts. Conservatives support contract law as the foundation of capitalism.

So, why is the SB1 theft more egregious than the Madoff theft? The Colorado Legislature stole money from retirees who are less well off than Madoff’s pre-qualified hedge fund clients.

The Madoff victims were taking risks to seek a higher return on their investments, the Colorado PERA victims simply trusted that their contracts would be honored.

Colorado PERA and the Legislature justified their theft on false premises, citing 2008 market numbers when they knew the markets had recovered approximately 20 percent in 2009. PERA’s General Counsel stated on tape before the 2010 legislative session began that he expected a pension return “north of 15 percent”) for 2009.

It appears that Colorado PERA used the very resources of PERA members to hire a team of lobbyists (up to a dozen) to take earned benefits from those same members. That is truly insane.

Many members of the Legislature acted in ignorance. Spoonfed by the lobbyists, they ignored the legal rights of PERA retirees, and swallowed whole without question the assertions of PERA’s CEO and its chief legal counsel. If the members had read any case law, (for example, the state defined benefit pension case law summary by Prof. Amy Monahan at the University of Minnesota School of Law, Google it!), or even the 2004 Colorado AG opinion on pension benefits (retiree benefits are inviolate) they would not have supported the bill.

PERA’s own General Counsel was quoted in a 2008 Denver Post article as follows: “The attorney general’s opinion seems clear that fully vested employees — those retired or with enough years of service to retire — cannot see any benefits reduced, including cost-of-living adjustments, Smith said.” Why would Smith state that an action is illegal, and then decide to champion that action in the following year? Sounds quite fickle.

Although members of the Colorado PERA Board of Trustees are fiduciaries, charged to act only in the interests of the members and the retirees, they recommended SB1, acting primarily in the interests of PERA employers who were concerned with keeping their contribution rates low. This is the clearest case of groupthink I have seen in my life. Don’t they get it? It doesn’t matter if five or ten percent of your retired members endorse your plan. It doesn’t matter that you drove all over the state to visit with your pension members. That is not the standard for constitutionality in the US.

Adding insult to injury the Legislature stole more money than it needed. The pension theft bill sought to increase PERA’s funded level to 100 percent, although an 80 percent funded level is considered well-funded among pension experts and actuaries. You don’t have to pay off your mortgage tomorrow, and PERA doesn’t have to pay off all of its pension obligations tomorrow. They have 30 years.

There were many other options available to address the pension shortfall, options that have been adopted, or are under consideration in dozens of states. See the legal, prospective pension reform that was accomplished in Utah this year. Look Legislature . . . when the real pension reform happens in Colorado in a few years, please take the time to examine these prospective, legal reform options. You are members of the National Conference of State Legislatures, listen to their people, they will let you know what legal reforms are being made by states.

The Legislature had the ability to investigate the legality of its actions up front, but chose to act with no legal advice. Throughout the floor and committee debates on SB1 the members displayed an ignorance of, or an intentional disregard for the relevant case law. They failed to conduct the due diligence expected of an elected body. State legislatures across the nation are examining the legal limitations on their actions regarding pension reform, exploring all legal options prior to acting. (PERA claimed to have a legal opinion to justify their actions, but never released it.) Where is this secret legal opinion?

Members of the Legislature have taken an oath to uphold the constitution and yet voted to violate the Contract Clause and the Takings Clause. Proponents of Senate Bill 1 refused to see that the retiree COLA (annual benefit increase) is set forth in Colorado law with the same force, status and weight as is the base retirement benefit. Only tortured legal reasoning, and wishful thinking, lead them to believe otherwise.

PERA has been disingenuous by claiming that the reform bill represents “shared sacrifice” among employees, employers, and retirees, by not making it clear that retirees bear most of the burden of their proposed reforms, for many retirees the confiscation of benefits will reach one-quarter of their total retirement benefits received over the rest of their lives. In debate, the bill’s sponsors said that retirees would bear 90 percent of the cost of the reform. In any event, I am not relieved of my contractual obligations just because someone else has better terms in their contract. The entire premise is ludicrous.

While ignoring its own contractual pension obligations (underfunding of $2.7 billion in the last seven years according to PERA’s own actuaries) the State of Colorado has pumped half a billion dollars into pension obligations that are not its responsibility, those of local governments (Old Fire Police Pension obligations). (This half billion is documented in a brief by the JBC staff.)

The Legislature made a pact with unions to support the “pension reform bill” (SB1) to protect union jobs. Incredibly, these union members tossed their former members, their retired “brothers” under the bus. From the beginning the plan was “let’s steal the money we need from retirees.” During the debate on SB1, the Chairman of the House Finance Committee essentially stated that the retiree COLA had to be seized “because that’s where the money is.” Listen to the end of the tape of the House Finance hearing on the bill.

Finally, Madoff eventually admitted to his crime, but the Colorado General Assembly is still pretending that their theft of pension benefits is something to be celebrated. They tout it as a “bi-partisan accomplishment.” This will be a long-standing embarrassment to and black mark on our state.

Rex The Wonder Dog!
December 29, 2010 at 1:05 pm
I needed to add one more comment. The US Supreme Court has ruled that Social Security is a joke. The Government has NO obligation to pay off.

=========================

“Not true. But please feel free to cite the case.”

OK

Social Security benefits are not guaranteed.

They are not guaranteed legally because workers have no contractual or property rights to any benefits whatsoever. In two landmark cases, Flemming v. Nestor and Helvering v. Davis, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Social Security taxes are not contributions or savings, but simply taxes, and that Social Security benefits are simply a government spending program, no different than, say, farm price supports. Congress and the president may change, reduce, or even eliminate benefits at any time.

“BTW, CA as a sovereign entity does not have to pay off any of it’s debts-including pensions-since the state itself cannot be sued under the 11th Amendment.”

Directly from the California Constitution:

Amendments of 1992 to Article XVI, Section 17

“Notwithstanding any other provisions of law or this Constitution to the contrary, the retirement board
of a public pension or retirement system shall have plenary authority and fiduciary responsibility for
investment of moneys and administration of the system, subject to all of the following:
(a) The retirement board of a public pension or retirement system shall have the sole and exclusive fiduciary responsibility over the assets of the public pension or retirement system. The retirement board shall also have sole and exclusive responsibility to administer the system in a manner that will assure prompt delivery of benefits and related services to the participants and their beneficiaries. The assets of a public pension or retirement system are trust funds and shall be held for the exclusive purposes of providing benefits to participants in the pension or retirement system and their beneficiaries and defraying reasonable expenses of administering the system.

In short you would need a new amendment to the California Constitution to change this and even then it is protected by Article One of the US Constitution under the Contracts Clause.

Editor,

I don’t know what the “proper premium” might be for police and firefighters in particular, but they are the only public employees who intentionally go into harm’s way on behalf of others. The reduction in police and fire deaths is largely attributable to improvements in equipment and training, but the fact remains that others who are hurt or killed on the job are the victims of crimes or accidents, not the result of conducting inherently dangerous activities on behalf of others.

I don’t know where you and others get the repeated assertion that police and fire personnel are paid at a higher rate that physicians. If you focus only on California, even family practice physicians make upwards of $250k in nearly every non-public practice. If you wish to compare the public sector wages of police officers/firefighters to physicians, then we get closer, although the flat rate for physicians is still close to the $200k range. No field level police officer or firefighter really makes anything close without a lot of overtime, which is not generally computed as pensionable income.

Relative worth of various jobs is a different discussion from market level pay considerations. Many physicians have had their educational expenses paid by their public employers, particularly those who have taken advantage of military education programs, so I’m not sure why you keep trying to make such a distinction.

Are physicians more intelligent than most people? Certainly, in terms of their science aptitude. However, many physicians have a very limited ability to deal with people in the midst of real world problems. Does that make them unqualified for their service? Of course not, but comparing physicians salaries with other professions is far less about public service and more about the kind of people we tend to put on pedestals in our society.

Funny how, whenever the rhetoric heats up, there’s some event like the most recent Chicago fire to remind us of exactly how the work of public employees,
==================

More convienience store clerks are murdered every year working for minimum wage on graveyard shifts than all the deaths from cops and FF’s put together for the last 5 years combined (which BTW the vast majority of on the job cop/ff deaths are from traffic accidents).

Same for construction.

Don Levit

These are exchange transactions, in which employees willingly took lower pay for constitutionally-guaranteed benefits.

========================
Don, do we look like we just fell off the turnip truck?? Gov job pay AND compensation FAR EXCEED private sector pay (and even further for benefits) for the same work.

Your claim was true in 1950, maybe 1960, it is not true today, and has not been true for at least the last 20 years.

Here, this is for you Don;

Government pay ahead of private industry
By Dennis Cauchon, USA TODAY
Updated 3/8/2010

Government employees earn higher average salaries than private-sector workers in more than eight out of 10 occupations, a USA TODAY analysis of government data finds.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/nation/2010-03-04-federal-pay_N.htm

Also, the California DPA has proven by their salary surveys that State Engineers still lag Private Engineers by 11% in total compensation. The DPA is governor Arnold and they certainly have no reason to make the numbers favorable to State Engineers. Also, USA today is only one small step above the reliability of weekly rags like the National Inquirer.

ED,

I told you … the “entitlement mentality” is deeply entrenched.

You’ll NEVER change the thinking of Charles, SkippingDog, etc.

That’s why a no-holds-barred/take-no-prisoners approach to effecting change is necessary. If you think otherwise, rumor has it that the disastrously ineffective snow cleanup in NYC is due to a Union slowdown in response to layoffs.

President Reagan had the right idea.

Editor wrote:
Social Security will always be solvent.
Could you elaborate on that?
Are you part of the bunch of people who think that, due to a fiat currency, and the dollar being the world’s reserve, we can infinitely churn out dollars, with no consequences?
Is the U.S. Government somehow immune to what has happened to other countries in the past, because we are God’s chosen nation?
There are 2 things I know, Editor.
There is a God, and it is not the U.S. Government!

What you are saying, I believe, is that as long as the trust fund has a balance, that it has the authority to withdraw from the Treasury without an appropriation.
But doing so is the same mechanics as paying for battleships – the dollars come from current revenues and debt.
The trust fund makes it no easier to pay beneficiaries than without a trust fund, for the trust fund dollars have been lent to the Treasury, spent on current expenses, and (artificially) lowered the deficits.
Even the U.S. Government can’t put the same dollars in 2 pots!
I can provide third party governmental excerpts and links to back up my statements if anyone is interested.
Don Levit

Rex:
Those 2 Supreme Court cases do, indeed, state that Social Security is not a retirement/savings program, by which the government is contractually bound.
That is because taxes and benefits are not directly related. Taxes pay for the general welfare, not for a particular benefit that one can say is his private property.
Here are some excerpts and links:
Flemming v. Nestor, 363 U.S. 603 (1960)
“Each worker’s benefits, though flowing from the contributions he made to the national economy while actively employed are not dependent on the degree to which he was called upon to support the system by taxation. It is apparent that the noncontractual interest of an employee covered bv the Act cannot be soundly analogized to that of the holder of an annuity, whose right to benefits is bottomed on his contractual premium payments.”
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/363/603.html.

U.S. Supreme Court Helvering v Davis, 301 U.S. 619 (1937)
“The first section of this title (the Social Security Act) creates an account in the Treasury known as the Old-Age Reserve Account. No present appropriation, however, is made to that account.
Not a dollar goes into the account by force of the challenged Act alone, unaided by Acts to follow.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/printer_friendly.pl?page=us/301/619.html.
Don Levit

Don: If you read additional posts here, you will certainly not come away with the impression that I am “part of the bunch of people who think that, due to a fiat currency, and the dollar being the world’s reserve, we can infinitely churn out dollars, with no consequences?” Try these:
https://civicfinance.org/2010/12/18/national-debt-and-rates-of-return/
https://civicfinance.org/2010/03/15/the-razors-edge-inflation-vs-deflation/

My points about Social Security implicitly concede that the “trust fund” is somewhat of a fiction. The analysis here attempts to demonstrate, however, that on a pay-as-you-go basis, where current worker withholdings are used to fund current retiree benefits, social security does not face an inordinate financial challenge.

Editor:
Current worker withholdings do pay beneficiaries.
It is the surplus withholdings that have been spent over the years.
Social Security doesn\’t have unfunded liabilities, only in the sense the federal government considers only the current year\’s benefits as a liability.
In fact, the FASAB, the accounting advisor for the federal government, considers FICA and SECA taxes as non exchange transactions.
Which means, that the citizens are compelled to pay the tax, yet the government, if it pays out benefits, is actually doing you a favor!
I can provide excerpts and links to support these statements from reputable governmental web sites.
Don Levit

TL – Elected officials, in Pittsburgh or anywhere else, actually have a higher master than the people who elect them. It’s called the Constitution and the law, and it is what every elected official takes an oath to protect and defend when they take office. It’s nice to talk about “the people,” but our system was never designed to be a direct democracy, even in Pittsburgh.

The Constitution protects contracts and prevents the imposition of ex post facto laws throughout our country, so Pittsburgh and other cities will just have to work through the problems they are facing in a legal manner, with the cooperation of their employees, and with the cooperation of the citizens they represent.

Today’s CNN story about police officers killed in the line of duty. Something for Rex and TL to consider.

http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/12/29/us.law.enforcement.deaths/index.html?hpt=Sbin
=========================

Today’s story about convenience store clerk killed in the line of duty while working the grave yard shift for minimum wage, or about 1/10th of what a GED educated cop or FF get comped. And this story is repeated 20 times for every ONE time it happens to a cop or FF.

Something for Skippy to consider.

http://www.kctv5.com/news/26312439/detail.html

Rex, Although our goals …. of pension/benefit reductions “fair” (and affordable) to taxpayers … are similar, I doubt that Civil Servant Unions and members will “fall into line” easily. I believe we will follow the unfortunate pattern seen in Europe first … with massive strikes, battles, and likely some violence by very angry Civil Servants.

And it will be much more difficult here, due to the myriad of differing State, county, city, and municipal Pension Plans well as separate Plans for Teachers, Policeman, etc.

It’s going to be a HUGE and UGLY mess…… but unfortunately necessary … as the status quo will certainly bankrupt us.

The convenience store clerk murder is certainly a tragic crime, but it has no relationship to men and women who knowingly and intentionally risk and sometimes lose their lives on behalf of others. Comparing police officers and firefighters to store clerks, truck drivers, and roofers doesn’t take into account the essentially different nature of the tasks being performed, nor the commitment police and firefighters make to risk or even sacrifice their own lives in their duty to save another from harm.

Although Rex doesn’t get this, most sane people do.

As to Rex’s suggestion that municipalities use the threat of bankruptcy to roll their employees during contract negotiations, it clearly reflects his complete lack of understanding of the term “good faith,” and would severely undermine any trust that might be necessary to ensure effective public services.

Rex and TL are perfect examples of why we need a strong and vigorous legal system to protect the contractual and statutory rights of public employees.

Here’s another example for TL and Rex. Notice that the officer was “responding to” reports of gunfire.

http://www.cnn.com/2011/CRIME/01/01/ohio.officers.shot/index.html?hpt=T1

Rex and TL are perfect examples of why we need a strong and vigorous legal system to protect the contractual and statutory rights of public employees.
==========================

LOL..here it is AGAIN-the “but we have a contract” line.

The “contract” you have that gave you 50% retroactive pension raises is not a contract because it is VOID. Elected officials have no legal authority (hence no contract) to raise pensions retroactively (decades) after the work has already been performed, under the ORIGINAL contract. I guess they forgot to teach you that in cop law school.