Today, Yahoo! featured an AP article on the brewing anger over government workers’ benefits, suggesting that the stand-off in the Badger State means additional scrutiny of the power of public employee unions. In the article, writer Geoff Mulvihill interviewed not just individuals upset at the spiraling costs of offering lavish benefits to the public workforce, but also scholars who have studied labor markets:
“It’s the government sector worker who’s the new elite, the highest-paid worker on the block,” said David Gregory, who teaches labor and employment law at New York’s St. John’s University.
For instance, most non-uniformed public employees who have worked in New Jersey for 30 years with an ending salary of $85,000 can look forward to retiring at 55 with an annual pension of about $46,000. Working until age 60 and a salary of $90,000 can bring a pension of $57,000. And many of the New Jersey’s public-sector retirees have no or low premiums for their health insurance.
For a private-section worker who retires at 55, relying solely on a 401(k) without an employer match, it would take a $100 contribution to a plan every week for 30 years and getting an annual return over 7 percent to get to the same level of pension benefit as the public worker retiring at that age. Those benefits would run out after 25 years for the 401(k) retiree. . . .
The government entities spent 1.7 times as much on health care per employee-hour worked and nearly twice as much on retirement costs. Public-sector workers — who are more often represented by unions — are far more likely to have defined-benefit pensions with promises to pay for the retirees’ whole lives.
The more people learn not just about the costly benefits which public employees have secured, but also the favors which states have granted their unions (such as requiring local school districts to “buy health insurance from a union company“), the more likely they are to supposed those like the modest one Governor Walker has proposed in Wisconsin.
The economically illiterate left will say “So? This just means everybody should be entitled to that level of benefits and private workers would have them too if it weren’t for corporate greed.”
They have no notion of how such a scheme might be paid for beyond “taxing the rich.”
umm Why is this an us vs. Them, at one time most employees enjoyed such benefits or something similar to them. As they were slowly stripped from nongovernment jobs people earned less and worked more. As the benefits for management grew worker benefits shrank. Yes there are other trends like outsourced labor, global competition etc. But do I resent them having these benefits? No, people who try to divide workers into a us vs. Them match are always doing it to distract you from the fact that they’ve already stolen something from the people they are trying to enrage.
I’m not buying it, yes some benefits need to be reduced to balance the budgets, but shouldn’t we be aspiring to better paying jobs with better benefits than attacking people because they have something we don’t?
V the K, I take it you’re firmly in the people should suck it because only the elite should have benefits camp? Yes it would reduce corporate profits but so what, why does a CEO who works for a few years for a company before leaving deserve to earn 1000 times as much as me?
Scrutiny is this kind is very welcomed. Governor Walker is so right in bringing public unions under control. Unions in general could not sell themselves in the private sector, so they had to go public!
What the Left in Wisconsin and their crooked pals are attempting when they accuse Governor Walker of wrong doing, is similar to what’s being reported in headline news coming out of Oregon today. According to CNN, a local man broke into a Portland home and soon after locked himself in the upstairs john. But as fate would have it, or maybe his shower just took too long, the crook was soon discovered by the homeowner, scaring the culprit into quickly dialing 911 on his cell….. All the while claiming to the cop on the other end, how he feared for his life because the owner of the house he’d broken into may have a gun.
Tim – I can agree to some point tha tmost CEOs aren’t worth their paychecks given the galactic incompetence I’ve witnessed in 30-some years of private sector employment. Honest-to-god: it’s a miracle that any company manages to make a profit.
For every Steve Jobs, there are legions of upper-management types that make Dilbert’s pointy-haired boss look like Tom Peters.
But that’s not the issue at hand. The issue is simple: a population of people making X cannot afford to pay its public servants 1.5X.
I think the article used the term “deferred compensation” referring to gubmint employee pensions. That’s one term that should be stricken forever when it comes to government compensation. DC in a private company has to be accounted for; in the public sector, they’re promised by vote-buying politicians with no responsibility whatsoever for figuring out how to pay for them.
What Tim doesn’t realize that the only reason employees have ‘benefits’ is because it was a way for employers to reward their workers and avoid certain taxes. Life would be a lot simpler if people simply received an honorable salary and had no benes attached.
The only one that makes any sense is a way for both worker and boss to contribute to a retirement fund.
We would be a lot better off if healthcare weren’t tied in to a persons job.
I’m firmly in the camp that people should be responsible for their own retirement plans, and that pension levels should not exceed the level at which they are economically sustainable.
There are definitely a lot of over-compensated CEO’s; the elite class looks after its own. But I view it as the lesser of two evils; the greater evil being a centrally planned, socialized economy.
And I agree with Leah. The best way to contain health care costs would be to eliminate third party payers. People ought to be financially responsible for their own routine care, and have insurance for catastrophic events. Car insurance covers accidents, not oil changes. Health Care should work the same way.
Because it takes a certain amount of talent to run a company. To be a Whopper Flopper, not so much. The boards determine how much they’re willing to spend to attract that talent. Most importantly, they have contracts guaranteeing them that rate of pay.
What’s interesting: If liberals were consistent, they’d hate their rich bitch
unionsmobs as well. However, their hatred doesn’t include the rich that donate to and vote for the right candidates. That’s a main reason why their class warfare is such bullshit.I’m in the camp that if your retirement is in any way invested in companies like Koch Industries or the oil & gas industry, you should quit your bitching and shut your cake hole.
I agree with Leah, benefits should be sustainable, and that goes for CEO’s as well, I just have to question our system in which corps (of which i am part of one) rack up huge cash hoards and aren’t expected to reward their employees. Personally I think that the union structure as it has grown into is not sustainable, but in almost every case I’ve studied unions are willing to take cuts to maintain a companies health when presented with the facts.
I also agree that health care costs would lower if they were borne entirely by the consumer. But what i disagree on is the attitude that people shouldn’t be able to band together to improve their lot through collective bargaining. That’s equivalent to telling a group of people that they can’t talk to each other about what they are paid or the world will be destroyed. it goes against freedom of speech and freedom of association. blaming the unions for the contracts that legislatures agreed to says that legislatures are in fact flawed and can’t be counted on to be honest. Let’s blame the legislators for their faults not the unions. In the case of wisconsin the unions are not the flawed part, but rather those that promised one thing in exchange for services rendered and than reneged. I’m just opposed to the idea that we should be fighting each other rather than the parties that are responsible for the fiscal crisis
Let me stop you right there – ‘the power of the public employee unions.’ Boy, you Republicans sure know how to prioritize. It’s 2.5 years later, and all of a sudden you’re realizing that it’s these public employee unions that are responsible for running the American economy into the ground? You’re really calling an $85,000 salary after 30 years in an organization ‘lavish’ and ‘elite?’
I think that’s a perfectly reasonable amount of money to be making at age 55, don’t you? If the private sector can’t keep pace with that kind of compensation, doesn’t that tell us something about our corporate culture? When CEOs are getting golden parachutes and handfuls of executives are taking home tens of millions in bonuses every year, the discrepancy between private and public pay levels is accounted for easily. The people in the Forbes 400 list make more money than the bottom 50% of earners in this country combined. The problem isn’t that public sector workers are paid too much, it’s that private sector workers are paid too little.
I mean seriously – $85,000 after 30 years enables some kind of extravagant hedonism or something? You’re all crazy. How long is it going to take you people to realize that it’s the super-rich people that are responsible for our current predicament?
But should you be able to bargain with yourselves to improve your lot in life? Should we allow taxpayer money to be laundered through your group to improve your lot in life at the expense of those who aren’t in your group?
Wouldn’t that be the liberals who promised the “one thing”, the same liberals chosen and financed by the unions?
It’s not “all of a sudden”. It’s been known for decades. I suppose you’ll tell me that the Lions were responsible for decimating Detroit?
That depends entirely on what the position is and the work it entails. Would he be paid the same if it wasn’t other people’s money taken by force instead of earned?
The whole point, which you’re clearly too stupid to understand, is that the people who don’t make that kind of money and benefits are forced to pay for it. How can you bitch about private sector CEOs financed by capitalism and in the same breath demand that public sector employees be financed by transferring money from the people?
Why? Because you’re a f*king liberal and you’ll fight to the death to protect taking money, by force, from the have nots and giving it to the haves who vote the right way.
About the same amount of time it takes you to realize that the “super-rich” are the ones who voted for and financed that Asshole in Chief you wanted so badly.
Jackass.
#2: “umm Why is this an us vs. Them…”
Tim,
I don’t know enough about your core views or which Tim you are to be absolutely sure of where you’re coming from, but when anyone trots out the TIRED, whiny “why does it always have to be us vs. them” lament, it tells me right off the bat I’m dealing with a person that is: (a) profoundly clueless and probably best left with their “can’t we all get along” view of politics undisturbed; OR (b) an insufferable left-wing jackass engaging in the usual dishonest hand-wringing over the death of civility, cooperation, and bi-partisanship in politics (naturally, we only seem to hear this song and dance when the Democrats find themselves in the minority and unable to lock Republicans out of meetings, block debate, and unilaterally pass legislation costing trillions of dollars in peace).
If you’re the former (a), let me get you up to speed on why the battle over public employee benefits is so adversarial and feels so “us vs. them.”
–Because “us” are already overtaxed;
–Because federal, state, and local entitlements and employment benefits are unfunded and/or insolvent;
–Because Democratic politicians have made it perfectly clear that they DO NOT CARE. Instead of shoring up SS and Medicare FIRST, Obama & crew robbed those existing programs of half a trillion dollars to create a whole NEW entitlement program that we couldn’t pay for in our wildest dreams even if every man, woman, and child in the US were taxed at a marginal rate of 75% AND with the stroke of a pen went on an additional trillion dollar spending spree, throwing taxpayers’ money around to his cronies and loyalists to “stimulate” the economy. Of course, the results are in and the economy is, in fact, in WORSE shape because of this Administration’s policies (even WORSE than they said the economy would have been had they done NOTHING);
–Because “us” slaughtered “them” in the mid-term elections because Americans have seen the Democrats for the corrupt statists that they are and they voted them out. “Them” have responded by ignoring the rule of law and undermining the democratic process because when they said “elections have consequences” they certainly didn’t mean for “them”;
–Because in response to “us” proposing reasonable measures to FINALLY start feathering the brakes on this bullet train racing toward financial catastrophe (i.e. contributing say,…tiny percentages to their own healthcare and pension benefits—I know CRAZY), “them” have called “us” Nazis, racists, slack-jawed imbeciles, and homicidal maniacs. “They” have lied to their employers and abandoned the very jobs they purportedly do out of the kindness of their hearts, used their captive audience (the students) as unwitting pawns to generate public sympathy at protests and on camera (most certainly without parental consent), and acted like vagrants, treating the Wisconsin state capitol like a landfill and a sewer for the duration of their endless tantrum.
–Because “them” have made it perfectly clear that even the suggestion of implementing reforms under which they would be required to “pay their fair share” toward their own pensions and healthcare is an outrage justifying violent assaults against “us”, death threats against political adversaries, and collusion w/ unethical physicians to commit medical fraud.
So, Tim, the reason this dispute is so “us vs. them” is because it IS us vs. them.
If alternatively you’re the latter (b), CRAM IT. Public employee unions have been colluding for decades with Democrats to swap ridiculous compensation packages for votes/campaign cash and having the nerve to call it “negotiations” even though the entire arrangement depended on the people picking up the bill having no place at the bargaining table. Yet despite these facts, you have the nerve to scold, “shouldn’t we be aspiring to better paying jobs with better benefits than attacking people because they have something we don’t?” The answer is NO, we shouldn’t. After a couple of decades of unionized government employees paying THEMSELVES quite handsomely behind the taxpayers’ backs and to their detriment, can you see why they might not have gung-ho “aspirations” for finding ways to pay them even more?
Now that I’ve laid it out for you, can you see just how hopelessly moronic you sound by asking “why is this an us vs. them?” and piously calling for an end to “attacks on people because they have something we don’t” so we can focus on the more virtuous “aspiration” of “better paying jobs with better benefits” for public sector employees? Seriously, you should be embarrassed. You sound like an idiot.
“umm Why is this an us vs. Them…”
Because, and I quote:
Yes it would reduce corporate profits but so what, why does a CEO who works for a few years for a company before leaving deserve to earn 1000 times as much as me?
I’m just opposed to the idea that we should be fighting each other rather than the parties that are responsible for the fiscal crisis.
And then, finally, the quote that sent the clue meter plunging into negative territory:
No, people who try to divide workers into a us vs. Them match are always doing it to distract you from the fact that they’ve already stolen something from the people they are trying to enrage.
In short, Tim, for someone who doesn’t like “us vs. Them”, you sure spend a lot of time talking about “Them” and how they’re supposedly screwing “us” over.
You’re really calling an $85,000 salary after 30 years in an organization ‘lavish’ and ‘elite?’
Of course, Levi. After all, didn’t Obama Party members like yourself scream that anyone who makes above the median is “rich” and doesn’t deserve their money?
This is what makes your hypocrisy so hilariously blatant, Levi. You would NEVER support a private citizen or individual making that kind of money. You scream and rant about executives making vast sums. But when it comes to government workers and their unions, you support and endorse salaries and benefits that you would shriek were rapacious and evil for private companies.
You’re a hypocrite, boy. And a pathetic one at that. But then again, you’re defending your fellow welfare parasites, so it’s no surprise; Verizon Boy desperately wants to make the leap to the public sector, where he can masturbate to kiddie porn all day on his work computer and get paid a six-figure salary.
Currently dealing with the NJ bureaucracy; no rewards for the competent, no accountability for the imbeciles….
– Hand-carried some documents to a State agency’s office…took four days for them to log them in, and three more days to send me the receipt.
– The documents were approved the very next day.
– Record copies were delivered to the agency the next business day, yet yet it took two weeks for them to be internally-delivered back to the reviewer’s desk for his counter-signature.
– Once the documents were signed-off…and it took an additional TEN days for the mail room to put them in an envelope and mail then back.
All of this in one State office sharing the same floor of the same building…the reviewer acted on them the same day; yet the support staff took 30-elapsed-days to move them less than 75-ft.
In addition to the many reasons described above, Levi’s statement is also ridiculous because it assumes there should be automatic pay increases based on nothing but time served, instead of the ONLY justifiable basis which is merit. In the real world, you dont even get a cost of living increase, let alone a raise if your performance gets worse. In government, you get promoted with a raise, and your budget increases no matter what your performance.
Well said, Sean A.
I mean, the apologists for the public employee unions can whine all they like about fairness, but two facts are inescapable.
1. The country is broke can no longer afford the lavish pension schemes afforded to civil servants; especially with 90,000,000 baby boomers on the cusp of retirement.
2. The public employee unions are a money laundering operation to funnel taxpayer dollars into Democrat campaigns.
You can ignore reality all you want, but it will not ignore you.
Yes, I know. Conservatives just hate paying taxes so much!
I don’t make anywhere near $85,000 a year, so I suppose I’m one of the ‘have nots’ that is forced to give over a huge chunk of their money that you’re talking about in the bottom paragraph, right? Funny, because I certainly don’t feel overtaxed when I consider the small amount of money taken from each of my paychecks and all of the government-subsidized things that I take advantage of on a daily basis; public road ways, light rail, internet access, clean drinking water, television, cell phone service, Social Security checks for my grandparents, access to police, paramedics, and firefighters at the push of a button, a military that helps guarantee economic and political stability, and hundreds of other things that I take for granted most of the time.
And I still have plenty of money every month to play around, buy stuff I don’t need, save for retirment. Maybe conservatives complain about taxes because they’re terrible at managing their money? Or maybe you take everything in the list above for granted, and foolishly believe that you could be enjoying the novelties of modern society without a big government to pay for it.
They’ve got enough money that they can afford to own both parties. You’d do well not to embarass yourself by pretending like the Democrats are the party of big business and the Republicans are looking out for the average guy. It’s hard enough to take you seriously as it is.
Also, you can’t take collective bargaining out of the equation, since collective bargaining is what created the unsustainable pension and benefits situation to begin with. Collective bargaining is the loaded gun the unions and their politician allies press against the temple of the taxpayer when demanding his wallet.
Last I checked, the government doesn’t provide internet service, cell phone service or cable TV. Nor are they in the business of building roads. It should be noted that the eeeeeevil rich are the ones who make all of the above affordable for the rest of us.
Further, it takes three people working so your grandparents can get their Socialist Stupidity checks. Could’ve had a lot more money if they had been able to decide where that money goes rather than liberal pork projects and bailing out unions.
Oh right. The liberals are looking out for the average guy to exploit and keep average. You NEVER hear liberals pushing for people to improve their lives, it’s all about making everyone else just as average or poor.
Jackass.
Oh, so now it’s your money? I seem to recall you saying this…
So which is it, Levi?
Or maybe we should sum up Levi’s beliefs honestly.
“MY money belongs to me. Your money belongs to the government.”
Shorter Levi:
“My money is mine, and I want the government to take your money to pay for the things I want but don’t want to spend my money on.”
Government sector unions–with their corrupt Democrat enablers–is essentially a war on the public sector middle class as the Democrats collude to send taxpayer monies to the unions for political favors. Period. When Purple Shirts bring up corporations, you must divert their byline with the truth: Soaking the taxpayers since corporations have nothing to with it.
Is Levi actually Michael Moore hiding behind a pseudonym?
And the funny part; it seems that, for all their shrieking about “negotiation”, the Obama Fleebagger Party adamantly refuses to negotiate.
Maybe this will teach Timmy a lesson: the Obama Party that owns him lies to him on a regular basis. But then again, Timmy makes it easy; the Obama Party knows they just need to blame Republicans or Christians, and Timmy will believe anything and everything they say.
I look at that and I think: Finally, people are beginning to channel their anger in the right direction.
The AP article has some unintentionally-ironic bits:
Apparently, unionized gov’t workers think they are the middle class. No, actually: they’re upper class. The middle class is the people paying their comparatively-rich pensions.
And FTR, what’s killing the middle class is the Obama/Bernanke policy of over-spending and over-regulation, paid for by deliberate inflation / destruction of the dollar.
Imagine a stay-at-home wife, boldly proclaiming that her husband earns and deserves his pay. _Feminine Mystique_, anyone?
And once more on the “middle class” issue: how many “middle class” earners can afford to keep a spouse at home?
… said the wolf to the hounds.
umm, how about because WHAT THEY ARE PAID IS TAKEN BY FORCE FROM OTHERS’ POCKETS.
#29: “Is Levi actually Michael Moore hiding behind a pseudonym?”
Michael Moore can’t hide behind the Queen Mary.