User Panel
Quoted:
Undoubtedly I am beating my head against the wall, but suffice it to say your understanding of history is not mine. Just look at Greece as an example of public unions run amok. The primary reasons against them are simple: They too often are a monopoly and unlike the real world do not offer a product or service the public is free to reject. Can any part of you deny that there is a monopoly? What does history teach us happens under a monopoly? Hint: Gouging and pain. Most here would readily fire the NYSP for un-safe enforcement, but that's not going to happen. And, no, there is no "negotiation" as the business world understands it. You know, where parties bargain at arm's length and don't have "mandatory arbitration" (now that's an epic scam) and can decide not to do business at all. I surmise you're likely a decent person and we'd probably have a beer or so, but I doubt you've spend much time in the private sector. Virtually EVERY person I've known who is a strong public union supporter has no experience outside of one. They really don't get it. They just can't fathom a world where there is actual competition. Not a fan of speed traps. Tells me the local constabulary is over staffed. An ugly waste of resources for a revenue driven scam. I'd eliminate all stationary traps and have officers look for what they don't see while hiding: tailgating, unsafe passing and more. Plucking the lowest hanging fruit does little but take people's money without enhancing safety in any meaningful way. View Quote The union is comprised of its membership. Not the general public. Why should the general public have a say in whether the workers of a given entity are able to unionize or not. The purpose of a union is to represent the membership, not the general public. There's nothing wrong with binding arbitration. It's a vast improvement over the days not too far in the past when the employees could advance requests , suggestions etc in the negotiations and the employer only had to say "nope" to all of it. You want to complain about a monopoly of power? That's exactly what that was. Binding arbitration came about because the employer had a monopoly of power. Speed enforcement is something that's done between calls, unless you're a dedicated traffic enforcement car that is often funded through grant money specific to that purpose. That's the reality of life in most agencies where staffing is already bare bones for the work load being done. I tend to work residential areas and school zones. When I had a plate reader car assigned to me I would hit the state roads during rush hours because the volume of traffic ensured more hits on the reader. Every officer has their own way of doing traffic enforcement. As for the whole following too closely, unsafe passing etc. those are most often proven by a resulting accident, which is really the only time I write such tickets. |
|
Quoted:
The union is comprised of its membership. Not the general public. Why should the general public have a say in whether the workers of a given entity are able to unionize or not. The purpose of a union is to represent the membership, not the general public. There's nothing wrong with binding arbitration. It's a vast improvement over the days not too far in the past when the employees could advance requests , suggestions etc in the negotiations and the employer only had to say "nope" to all of it. You want to complain about a monopoly of power? That's exactly what that was. Binding arbitration came about because the employer had a monopoly of power. Speed enforcement is something that's done between calls, unless you're a dedicated traffic enforcement car that is often funded through grant money specific to that purpose. That's the reality of life in most agencies where staffing is already bare bones for the work load being done. I tend to work residential areas and school zones. When I had a plate reader car assigned to me I would hit the state roads during rush hours because the volume of traffic ensured more hits on the reader. Every officer has their own way of doing traffic enforcement. As for the whole following too closely, unsafe passing etc. those are most often proven by a resulting accident, which is really the only time I write such tickets. View Quote The purpose of a union is not at issue, but the appropriateness is. I actually support private sector unions for the reasons you say, but cannot abide them in government. See here: http://www.nationalaffairs.com/publications/detail/the-trouble-with-public-sector-unions As for arbitration, the reality is the deck is stacked against the public. That's how we ended up with 6 figure public safety salaries, crushing healthcare costs and spiraling pensions. See here: https://cei.org/blog/binding-arbitrations-threat-state-and-local-governments We likely will not agree, but that's fine. Watch as the system slowly implodes. It has happened in Detroit and is coming to Chicago, parts of California and more. Plate readers give me a real case of paranoia. Way too "Big Brother" for me. |
|
Quoted:
Plate readers give me a real case of paranoia. Way too "Big Brother" for me. View Quote It's merely a technological step up from the old school "hot sheets" that required the use of the Mk I eyeball. Your plate and its associated data regarding suspensions, stolen status etc is not your own private information. The plate is the property of the state. |
|
Quoted:
The union is comprised of its membership. Not the general public. Why should the general public have a say in whether the workers of a given entity are able to unionize or not. The purpose of a union is to represent the membership, not the general public. There's nothing wrong with binding arbitration. It's a vast improvement over the days not too far in the past when the employees could advance requests , suggestions etc in the negotiations and the employer only had to say "nope" to all of it. You want to complain about a monopoly of power? That's exactly what that was. Binding arbitration came about because the employer had a monopoly of power. Speed enforcement is something that's done between calls, unless you're a dedicated traffic enforcement car that is often funded through grant money specific to that purpose. That's the reality of life in most agencies where staffing is already bare bones for the work load being done. I tend to work residential areas and school zones. When I had a plate reader car assigned to me I would hit the state roads during rush hours because the volume of traffic ensured more hits on the reader. Every officer has their own way of doing traffic enforcement. As for the whole following too closely, unsafe passing etc. those are most often proven by a resulting accident, which is really the only time I write such tickets. View Quote The union is comprised of its membership. Not the general public. Why should the general public have a say in whether the workers of a given entity are able to unionize or not. The purpose of a union is to represent the membership, not the general public This conversation started out about the obscene public pensions. Now this conversation took on a life of its own . So let me get this, the general taxpaying public has nothing to do with the state unions and the pension system? So what is the unions purpose again ? l didn't realize the state is a private organization and works on hard money based on profit. |
|
Quoted:
This conversation started out about the obscene public pensions. Now this conversation took on a life of its own . So let me get this, the general taxpaying public has nothing to do with the state unions and the pension system? So what is the unions purpose again ? l didn't realize the state is a private organization and works on hard money based on profit. View Quote The unions purpose is to represent its membership. Is that so hard to understand? Neither of the places I work at have a "state union" The unions are respectively a membership of about 60 persons at one place and a dozen or so at the other. Obscene public pensions? As I already said, the pensions are calculated off the salaries of the employee. Sure the downstate admins make a higher pension in the end, because their working salaries were higher due to the cost of living in the Downstate area. I know plenty of retired LEOs whose pensions are hardly "obscene" dollar amounts. Modest amounts, if anything. Now, back to my earlier question. You yourself apparently are a state retiree who is surely benefiting from the state pension system, and yet here you are complaining about state pensions. |
|
Quoted:
It's merely a technological step up from the old school "hot sheets" that required the use of the Mk I eyeball. Your plate and its associated data regarding suspensions, stolen status etc is not your own private information. The plate is the property of the state. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
Plate readers give me a real case of paranoia. Way too "Big Brother" for me. It's merely a technological step up from the old school "hot sheets" that required the use of the Mk I eyeball. Your plate and its associated data regarding suspensions, stolen status etc is not your own private information. The plate is the property of the state. |
|
|
Quoted:
The unions purpose is to represent its membership. Is that so hard to understand? Neither of the places I work at have a "state union" The unions are respectively a membership of about 60 persons at one place and a dozen or so at the other. Obscene public pensions? As I already said, the pensions are calculated off the salaries of the employee. Sure the downstate admins make a higher pension in the end, because their working salaries were higher due to the cost of living in the Downstate area. I know plenty of retired LEOs whose pensions are hardly "obscene" dollar amounts. Modest amounts, if anything. Now, back to my earlier question. You yourself apparently are a state retiree who is surely benefiting from the state pension system, and yet here you are complaining about state pensions. View Quote I am benefiting from a state pension which the taxpayer funded and I thank for that. So what's your point? What's with this LEO thingy? I don't recall specifically singling out any group of people other then the starting link to an article. This thread is only to highlight the run away pension system and how obscene the monies people receive for serving the public no matter what job they have. Did you address anything I put out there ? No. I didn't know the public unions were private and are based on the private sector model of profit margins. I mean come on guy lets be friends but be honest with yourself you don't see a pension of $200,000 + being obscene? If that was the private sector fine but the public ? if your believing what your saying there is no need for further discussion. |
|
|
Quoted:
And your pension is funded by extorting the tax payers. The system will eventually crash, hopefully sooner rather than later. View Quote Don't hate dude. I agree with you to a point but not the total ruination of peoples lives . I'm saying lets be fair and not greedy. We need services but not people openly ripping off the taxpayer. When I started working I contributed to the pension system with 3% of my salary. Pataki then decide no one needed to contribute I guess he wanted the unions backing. Anyway the state should start by taking 3% from salaries and go from there. Stop OT padding of the last 3 years for everyone and cap any pension at a reasonable number. This is much more complicated then I can elaborate but agree with you that the system is doomed taking with it the very people who support it. |
|
Quoted:
Don't hate dude. I agree with you to a point but not the total ruination of peoples lives . I'm saying lets be fair and not greedy. We need services but not people openly ripping off the taxpayer. When I started working I contributed to the pension system with 3% of my salary. Pataki then decide no one needed to contribute I guess he wanted the unions backing. Anyway the state should start by taking 3% from salaries and go from there. Stop OT padding of the last 3 years for everyone and cap any pension at a reasonable number. This is much more complicated then I can elaborate but agree with you that the system is doomed taking with it the very people who support it. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
Quoted:
And your pension is funded by extorting the tax payers. The system will eventually crash, hopefully sooner rather than later. Don't hate dude. I agree with you to a point but not the total ruination of peoples lives . I'm saying lets be fair and not greedy. We need services but not people openly ripping off the taxpayer. When I started working I contributed to the pension system with 3% of my salary. Pataki then decide no one needed to contribute I guess he wanted the unions backing. Anyway the state should start by taking 3% from salaries and go from there. Stop OT padding of the last 3 years for everyone and cap any pension at a reasonable number. This is much more complicated then I can elaborate but agree with you that the system is doomed taking with it the very people who support it. The only people that support the system are the people that rape the system. |
|
|
Quoted:
</strong> I am benefiting from a state pension which the taxpayer funded and I thank for that. So what's your point? What's with this LEO thingy? I don't recall specifically singling out any group of people other then the starting link to an article. This thread is only to highlight the run away pension system and how obscene the monies people receive for serving the public no matter what job they have. Did you address anything I put out there ? No. I didn't know the public unions were private and are based on the private sector model of profit margins. I mean come on guy lets be friends but be honest with yourself you don't see a pension of $200,000 + being obscene? If that was the private sector fine but the public ? if your believing what your saying there is no need for further discussion. View Quote LEO pensions, which are one subset of the NYS pension systems, has been mentioned. The number of pensioners who earn 200K a year are few and far between, and those are based off of what their salaries were, which tended to skew towards the higher end of the public sector pay scale. So what? Do you think that there should be a cap of X number of dollars regardless of what the workers pay scale was while working? Because that's what you seem to be implying. Unions exist for the benefit of the Membership, to represent the members during contract negotiations and during personnel actions. Pretty basic concept. Why would they exist for some other reason? Why would it matter if the union members were public or private? What other 'thing" do you think you "put out there" that's gone unaddressed? |
|
Quoted:
Don't hate dude. I agree with you to a point but not the total ruination of peoples lives . I'm saying lets be fair and not greedy. We need services but not people openly ripping off the taxpayer. When I started working I contributed to the pension system with 3% of my salary. Pataki then decide no one needed to contribute I guess he wanted the unions backing. Anyway the state should start by taking 3% from salaries and go from there. Stop OT padding of the last 3 years for everyone and cap any pension at a reasonable number. This is much more complicated then I can elaborate but agree with you that the system is doomed taking with it the very people who support it. View Quote Your information is outdated. Yes, for a while Pataki had it set up that once you had ten years vested in the system, employee contributions stopped. The only people who never contributed at all towards their pensions were tier 1 and maybe tier 2 members, but those are people who were hired during the ROCKERFELLER years in the 60s and 70s, NOT the PATAKI years. When I started I was tier 3, which was always a contributing tier. The system was changed again by Cuomo, who did away with that post-10 year non-contributory thing. I think they are up to tier 6 now There's also a cap on how much income can be added onto the base salary for pension calculations. I disagree with that. OT is so pervasive in my field; agencies don't hire the bodies they need because they'd rather have guys work the OT. If the employee worked the hours, that should be calculated towards the pension. It's also not the last three years, it's the TOP three years, which for the last generation of guys sin my agency was in the middle fo their careers when we went through a huge manpower shortage and guys had to work major OT to meet staffing needs. So you DO think that no matter what someone's salary is, their pension should not exceed some random number that you personally think is "excessive" . You aren't even saying that OT shouldn't be calculated, you're flat out saying a huge chunk of their base salary shouldn't be used in their pension calculations, because you think any resulting monthly pension would be "excessive". Give me a break. I disagree with such a plan entirely. It all comes down to jealousy on your part. There are guys out there making a pension dollar amount that you aren't making, so you're mad. Well, they earned a salary higher than you made. maybe you chose your career field poorly. Don't blame us. I bet you also didn't work weekends holidays and a ton of OT. Or even multiple jobs with retirement system pensionable time.Once again, don't blame those of us who did. |
|
View Quote Glad to see that you're so excited. I'll add one more thing Cuomo changed. It used to be five years to be vested, Cuomo changed that to ten years. I know a lot of small town LEOs who have not been working full time because they have limited or no full time positions in those agencies. Or they were hired outside of civil service age limits so couldn't be hired by a civil service agency, so they're limited to working the small at-will village PDs and splicing that work in with any number of other jobs and career fields to pay their bills..... So since the post-Rockefeller era they've been getting a tenth of a year, a quarter of a years credit every year they work. Because, you see OP, that was changed years ago too. Back during the pre-Rockefeller years when if you worked part time in a NY government job that was a pensionable position,you automatically got half a years credit in the pension system. That was eventually changed to where you get a fraction of a pensionable year equivalent to what percentage of a full time positions hours you actually worked. That happened pre-Cuomo, but I'm not sure exactly when; it happened before I joined the workforce in the late 70s, so I'm guessing in saying it must have been under King Cuomo 1. As a personal example, one part time job I had in the late 70s and early 80s, for 8 years of part time service, I got 2 1/2 years of pensionable time. At a village PD where I worked part time, after 13 years working there I had four years of pensionable time. Bottom line,under the old pension rules of being vested after five years of pensionable time, by the end of their working years these part time or at-will folks would have met the previous five year vesting requirement, and at least gotten a small pension out of the deal. Now with a ten year requirement for vesting, those small town LEOs will NEVER met the requirement at the increments they're working, unless they have some pensionable time from some other job they're able to roll into their final creditable time estimates. They might be able to cash out what they paid in, but there wont be a pension. And those weren't huge pensions to begin with. I looked up one retiree I was thinking of who did that sort of part time work and I think his pension was a whopping hundred bucks and some change a month after years and years of part time service for the village PD where he worked. Hardly a budget buster. And those guys aren't alone. There are all sorts of at-will employees and part time positions that give at least partial annual credit in the pension system towards pensionable time. County legislators, for instance, earn partial annual credit towards pensionable years that accrue for each year they're in elected office. At-will employees that maybe only get a few years on creditable pension system time before being replaced in a political change of the winds, that sort of thing. Those years may eventually wind up representing that workers sole retirement income outside of social security someday, because lets face it, unlike the typical ARF fantasy worker who sweats and slaves and puts money away and retires a millionaire, the reality is usually far different for the typical American worker. But with the changes Cuomo made, those sorts of things I just mentioned will no longer be possible. So OP may be complaining about the big Downstate and agency head big dollar earners he's never met and couldn't pick out of a lineup if he had to, and how they're breaking the pension bank in his mind, but the changes are more likely to affect a huge swath of small guys..OPs neighbors, friends, people he passes on the street or sits next to in church whose eventual pensions under the old system represented peanuts in the over-all dollars paid out in the pension system but represented an essential piece of that retirees financial security. People who are apparently like him, drawing a small NYS pension. But someone, usually anti-pension types, blew the silent dog whistle of "OMG, the pension system is sinking, we have to do SOMETHING!!" and predictably guys like OP hear the whistle, point and demand that "SOMETHING BE DONE!!" Yeah, something was done alright, because someone convinced you that the system was "being raped". But it wont affect those relatively few big earners OP. It'll affect little guys like you, OP. Congrats. You got what you wanted and you don't even realize it, because you're clearly not up-to-date on the current pension system rules based on what you posted. Oh, and thanks Cuomo, if you're reading...for nothing. |
|
I'm trying to have a conversation here and just laugh when I read this "jealous" statement. Its speaks volumes about your personality.
You are no where near management caliber your a worker at best so I understand your statement given your limitations. Good luck |
|
Quoted:
I'm trying to have a conversation here and just laugh when I read this "jealous" statement. Its speaks volumes about your personality. You are no where near management caliber your a worker at best so I understand your statement given your limitations. Good luck View Quote Tell me how else we're supposed to take your statements Somehow YOUR state pension is OK, but these other guys downstate? Why, in YOUR eyes THEIR pension is outrageous and overboard. As a matter of fact, you want to CAP how much THEIR pension should be. You got yours though, right? And really, you don't have a response to any of the facts I've put out in my last couple of posts, most likely because it runs contrary to the narrative you want to spin. |
|
Quoted:
Tell me how else we're supposed to take your statements Somehow YOUR state pension is OK, but these other guys downstate? Why, in YOUR eyes THEIR pension is outrageous and overboard. As a matter of fact, you want to CAP how much THEIR pension should be. You got yours though, right? And really, you don't have a response to any of the facts I've put out in my last couple of posts, most likely because it runs contrary to the narrative you want to spin. View Quote Good grief man your like a fucking pit bull settle down. I have no narrative to spin and said some pension who ever they are is over the top just like my property tax is outrageous. What's wrong with a cap for pension that is over $200,000 ? Please tell me I would like to know what you think. Of course all this would require a feasibility study and I'm in favor of anything for tax relief for the public and it doesn't require eliminating pension. Unfortunately people like you are protecting the status quo and are not open to change except what's in it for them. What facts are there other then NYS is politically corrupt and overspends recklessly on everything from state mandated programs and extortion of the public you know "its for the children." I.e.: If you cant make you mortgage payments are you going to be bailed out by the taxpayer ? No ! Your house would be foreclosed. Its that simple yet you have no problem with the state continually going to the taxpayer to fund everything they failed on or fucked up. Edit : Are you pensioned off yet? |
|
Quoted:
Good grief man your like a fucking pit bull settle down. I have no narrative to spin and said some pension who ever they are is over the top just like my property tax is outrageous. What's wrong with a cap for pension that is over $200,000 ? Please tell me I would like to know what you think. Of course all this would require a feasibility study and I'm in favor of anything for tax relief for the public and it doesn't require eliminating pension. Unfortunately people like you are protecting the status quo and are not open to change except what's in it for them. What facts are there other then NYS is politically corrupt and overspends recklessly on everything from state mandated programs and extortion of the public you know "its for the children." I.e.: If you cant make you mortgage payments are you going to be bailed out by the taxpayer ? No ! Your house would be foreclosed. Its that simple yet you have no problem with the state continually going to the taxpayer to fund everything they failed on or fucked up. View Quote I don't need to settle down. I posted a couple of very informative posts and you insulted me. You saying a certain pension amount is "over the top" is an opinion, and you're welcome to your opinion. As I have said multiple times, the pension is calculated based on the persons salary. It isn't some vast conspiracy intended to defraud the taxpayers. The status quo, as I already pointed out, doesn't exist. In creating tiers 5 and then 6, Cuomo addressed some of the concerns you've expressed. Not that I agree with some of his changes, but that's a topic for another thread. We have one of the better-run pension systems in NYS. Has it faltered at times and needed more money? Sure. But we are far ahead of many other states and municipalities, many of whom are in the straits they are in because the employees were paying their shares for years while the government declared a pension holiday for itself. I have 38 years in the system, although its not all pensionable time. Something like 32 actual pensionable years. I'm going for an estimate next spring but have no intentions of retiring any time soon. Once I do, I'm outta this state and somewhere they've never heard of SAFE acts... |
|
Quoted:
I don't need to settle down. I posted a couple of very informative posts and you insulted me. You saying a certain pension amount is "over the top" is an opinion, and you're welcome to your opinion. As I have said multiple times, the pension is calculated based on the persons salary. It isn't some vast conspiracy intended to defraud the taxpayers. The status quo, as I already pointed out, doesn't exist. In creating tiers 5 and then 6, Cuomo addressed some of the concerns you've expressed. Not that I agree with some of his changes, but that's a topic for another thread. We have one of the better-run pension systems in NYS. Has it faltered at times and needed more money? Sure. But we are far ahead of many other states and municipalities, many of whom are in the straits they are in because the employees were paying their shares for years while the government declared a pension holiday for itself. I have 38 years in the system, although its not all pensionable time. Something like 32 actual pensionable years. I'm going for an estimate next spring but have no intentions of retiring any time soon. Once I do, I'm outta this state and somewhere they've never heard of SAFE acts... View Quote Dammit see we agree on many things and it was not my intention to insult anyone you old bastard. I went out with 31 years and glad I did. Once the Safe Act passed my wife and I started looking for a place somewhere in SC just not sure where. The pension estimate is ok but you need to drill down into your pay check. You will be paying federal tax and don't forget your medical for the family. I have $1000 a month taken out of my pension for both federal and medical. At 65 you are mandated to go on Medicare and your state insurance is secondary. Don't second guess yourself don't let those years go to waste. Retire in the spring Good luck you will be free. Edit |
|
Quoted:
I'm trying to have a conversation here and just laugh when I read this "jealous" statement. Its speaks volumes about your personality. You are no where near management caliber your a worker at best so I understand your statement given your limitations. Good luck View Quote Yeah? A conversation? What conversation are you trying to have when In the past 40 or so days you've started 5 or 6 threads trashing public pensions? There are a lot of great guys in this forum that are public employees. Maybe we made the right decisions for work. Maybe we didn't. Maybe one day I'll post the video of me jumping out of a window 20 feet up on fire and you can tell me about my horrible pension. As someone else pointed out you aren't even posting facts. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah? A conversation? What conversation are you trying to have when In the past 40 or so days you've started 5 or 6 threads trashing public pensions? There are a lot of great guys in this forum that are public employees. Maybe we made the right decisions for work. Maybe we didn't. Maybe one day I'll post the video of me jumping out of a window 20 feet up on fire and you can tell me about my horrible pension. As someone else pointed out you aren't even posting facts. View Quote The key element is affordability. Well, that and annuitized costs. The money put in by employees is but a very small fraction of what is needed to fund pensions unknown in the private sector. They were abandoned not due to "greed", but basic accounting. Look at all the miners and similar pensions going bust. They were doomed from the start. Public pensions would be too, except that taxpayers are on the hook. That is what is killing NY and in large part why the states taxes are among the highest in the nation. Think about it--you all want out of a state your unions to no small extent created! But for public union support the democrats would not have nearly the stranglehold they do. Decent pensions made sense when the pay was low. Now however, the pay is often quite high and may surpass the private sector (Rockland cops at 175K?? WTF??). The is a direct correlation between states with strong public unions and low freedom/high taxes. Don't tell me you didn't notice this! NONE of the states many here wish to flee to have anything approaching public unions as the communist and democrat infested states such as NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA, etc all have. Again, not a coincidence. People would not object if your pension was funded with your money and, perhaps, a matching employer contribution. When the scale is so unbalanced it tips over, however, the public gets pissed. The lesson here is that when you escape teh northeastern gulags do NOT infest your new homes with the same democrat led coalition which drove you out. One more point- The public sector has only recently begun to feel what the private sector has been experiencing for some time: wage stagnation and loss of purchasing power. They don't like it. But, since public pay is derived from taxes should not public pay follow suit? Nobody in a business out in the real world gets "automatic" or "step" raises if there is no money in the budget. |
|
Quoted:
Yeah? A conversation? What conversation are you trying to have when In the past 40 or so days you've started 5 or 6 threads trashing public pensions? There are a lot of great guys in this forum that are public employees. Maybe we made the right decisions for work. Maybe we didn't. Maybe one day I'll post the video of me jumping out of a window 20 feet up on fire and you can tell me about my horrible pension. As someone else pointed out you aren't even posting facts. View Quote Apparently I must have made an honest mistake somewhere .Maybe you can enlighten me so I don't fuck up again I really don't want to mislead anyone. Carry on |
|
Quoted:
The key element is affordability. Well, that and annuitized costs. The money put in by employees is but a very small fraction of what is needed to fund pensions unknown in the private sector. They were abandoned not due to "greed", but basic accounting. Look at all the miners and similar pensions going bust. They were doomed from the start. Public pensions would be too, except that taxpayers are on the hook. That is what is killing NY and in large part why the states taxes are among the highest in the nation. Think about it--you all want out of a state your unions to no small extent created! But for public union support the democrats would not have nearly the stranglehold they do. Decent pensions made sense when the pay was low. Now however, the pay is often quite high and may surpass the private sector (Rockland cops at 175K?? WTF??). The is a direct correlation between states with strong public unions and low freedom/high taxes. Don't tell me you didn't notice this! NONE of the states many here wish to flee to have anything approaching public unions as the communist and democrat infested states such as NY, NJ, CT, MA, CA, etc all have. Again, not a coincidence. People would not object if your pension was funded with your money and, perhaps, a matching employer contribution. When the scale is so unbalanced it tips over, however, the public gets pissed. The lesson here is that when you escape teh northeastern gulags do NOT infest your new homes with the same democrat led coalition which drove you out. One more point- The public sector has only recently begun to feel what the private sector has been experiencing for some time: wage stagnation and loss of purchasing power. They don't like it. But, since public pay is derived from taxes should not public pay follow suit? Nobody in a business out in the real world gets "automatic" or "step" raises if there is no money in the budget. View Quote Pensions in the private sector were abandoned because companies wanted to maximize profits. That's greed. Most public sector jobs across the state do not pay 175K. Places that do pay anything close to that , do so because that's what it costs to live in those areas. You have to pay a wage commensurate with the living costs of an area if you expect to get anyone to take the job. I just looked and did some googling on Rockland County pay, and it lists a pay of 88K. Not a lot of money for that area in the state. if someone is making 175K, they're most likely in a higher position, more seniority and working a ton of OT. OT is part of the cost of doing business in law enforcement. No one else other than EMS is a 24/7 operation. The problem with pensions over the past decades has not been when employee pay goes up but when employers declare a pension holiday and don't make their share of the payments for years on end. Pay hikes are a negotiated element to a labor agreement and the raises I've seen are nothing to write home about. |
|
Quoted:
Pensions in the private sector were abandoned because companies wanted to maximize profits. That's greed. Most public sector jobs across the state do not pay 175K. Places that do , do so because that's what it costs to live in those areas. You have to pay a wage commensurate with the living costs of an area if you expect to get anyone to take the job. The problem with pensions over the past decades has not been when employee pay goes up but when employers declare a pension holiday and don't make their share of the payments for years on end. Pay hikes are a negotiated element to a labor agreement and the raises I've seen are nothing to write home about. View Quote Not really. The problem can be greed, but it is far deeper than that. What business model can survive for decades on end without change? What happens when a profitable company giving decent pensions just happens to also be a buggy whip maker 5 years before the Model T? What companies besides a few VERY large ones have the means to fund them, especially over time? Not possible. With a more global economy and the US no longer the sole major player any company hoping to be competitive will fail if it tries to match the public sector. When they do, they fail. Look at the multi-employer pensions now failing in greater numbers. Markets changed, products become no longer in demand and the companies died. Who will pick up the tab? You? The public sector should mirror the private, but be better. Or worse for that matter. Now there states like NJ which did stupid things with pension holidays. Was this greed, or, perhaps, the inevitable result of promising more to union supporters than the budget could realistically afford? Its easy to promise benefits 20 years out. Muh harder to PAY for them, especially when the underlying economy under goes wholesale changes. And THIS is the essential problem- public pensions are not based on the same economic reality as the rest of us, yet rely on us to pay it. Its a classic Ponzi scheme. Numbers aside, how do you account for the massive influence public sector unions have had on US politics? Do you not agree that states with the biggest public unions are always deeply democratic, high tax and low freedom? Take a look at this if you doubt the real world effects. Dems in Wisconsin are pushing hard to repeal what Walker did. If successful the left will prevail: http://projects.jsonline.com/news/2016/11/27/for-unions-in-wisconsin-fast-and-hard-fall-since-act-10.html This part is especially illustrative: A union history of the time put it this way: “It’s a bad idea to mess with teachers, public schools and WEAC.” The confidence grew out of a quick rise. “They went from a scooter to a Sherman tank,” said former Republican Senate leader Mike Ellis. In the early years of collective bargaining, dozens of teacher strikes — illegal but unenforced — created enough chaos with school staffing to push state lawmakers of both parties to create a mediation-arbitration system to resolve disputes. Under that system, approved in 1977, stalled contract negotiations went to neutral arbitrators who chose between final offers from school boards and unions. Over time, unions used that system to boost wages and benefits across the board. If unions in one district got something, unions in others used that as precedent to win the same increase. Teacher salaries in Wisconsin went from lagging the national average to the top 15. In 1977, average pay was $13,700; a decade later, it was $29,206, far outstripping even the high inflation of the period. The seeds of a public backlash were planted by the arbitration law. “Some would probably argue that was the death knell of real collective bargaining in Wisconsin,” said Rick Badger, now statewide head of AFSCME, the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees, which since Act 10 has lost 70% of its members at two of its councils. At the time, adding early retirement health care coverage was inexpensive. And if the union got it, typically the rest of the staff — including administrators — did as well. The benefit was handed out with little regard for long-term costs. “It was a ticking time bomb,” said James Korom, an attorney for school districts. As the 1990s dawned, Wisconsin’s per-pupil school spending — mostly teacher pay and benefits — rose to 12th highest nationally, at $5,666. On employee benefits, spending ranked fourth at $1,145 per pupil, 50% over the U.S. average. Worried about a tax revolt, Republican Gov. Tommy Thompson and lawmakers from both parties — including newly elected state Rep. Scott Walker of Wauwatosa — moved to put limits on teacher bargaining power. |
|
Quoted:
Not really. The problem can be greed, but it is far deeper than that. What business model can survive for decades on end without change? What happens when a profitable company giving decent pensions just happens to also be a buggy whip maker 5 years before the Model T? What companies besides a few VERY large ones have the means to fund them, especially over time? Not possible. With a more global economy and the US no longer the sole major player any company hoping to be competitive will fail if it tries to match the public sector. When they do, they fail. Look at the multi-employer pensions now failing in greater numbers. Markets changed, products become no longer in demand and the companies died. Who will pick up the tab? You? The public sector should mirror the private, but be better. Or worse for that matter. Now there states like NJ which did stupid things with pension holidays. Was this greed, or, perhaps, the inevitable result of promising more to union supporters than the budget could realistically afford? Its easy to promise benefits 20 years out. Muh harder to PAY for them, especially when the underlying economy under goes wholesale changes. And THIS is the essential problem- public pensions are not based on the same economic reality as the rest of us, yet rely on us to pay it. Its a classic Ponzi scheme. Numbers aside, how do you account for the massive influence public sector unions have had on US politics? Do you not agree that states with the biggest public unions are always deeply democratic, high tax and low freedom? View Quote And yet these companies somehow manage to thrive and make profits for their shareholders, at the expense of the people working for them. Hardly companies on the verge of being buggy whip makers The problem with a global company that you mention is that they want to drive their US expenses down to third world levels; that's not going to happen. So they stick it to the people working for them. Not every union is on the size of a UAW that gets involved in politics, but I can see why they do: they act on behalf of their membership to advocate for laws and policies that benefit the membership States and localities that declare pension holidays seem to be poorly run in general, and it's not merely because they're skipping out on paying their portion of the pension costs. |
|
Quoted:
And yet these companies somehow manage to thrive and make profits for their shareholders, at the expense of the people working for them. Hardly companies on the verge of being buggy whip makers The problem with a global company that you mention is that they want to drive their US expenses down to third world levels; that's not going to happen. So they stick it to the people working for them. Not every union is on the size of a UAW that gets involved in politics, but I can see why they do: they act on behalf of their membership to advocate for laws and policies that benefit the membership States and localities that declare pension holidays seem to be poorly run in general, and it's not merely because they're skipping out on paying their portion of the pension costs. View Quote You're still mixing together two VERY different entities- Public and private unions. Remember, the government does not offer a product or service the public is free to reject. Refuse and they take your home. Or put you in jail. Now THERE'S a captive market ripe for monopoly! Did you even read the link I shared? See the part where public unions damned near brought down a tax revolt? We are seeing the same thing over and over. Significantly, you do not even attempt to comment on the indisputable and irrevocably intertwined connections between democrats and public unions. EVERY state with strong public unions is freedom free, high tax and far left. Is your pension worth more than my freedom? Let's address a few points: "And yet these companies somehow manage to thrive and make profits for their shareholders, at the expense of the people working for them" No. they don't always. Many die. And they take many good people down with them. Some adapt. Look at Garmin, originally known for GPS devices that are on every phone. Others do not, like Compaq. Remember them? And, you conveniently forget, YOU are a shareholder--and a big one at that. Who do think are the 800lb gorillas in the market are? Homeowners? Nope. Try public union funds. Without these companies you demonize there would be no pension as your contribution alone might get you $3/week in retirement. The problem with a global company that you mention is that they want to drive their US expenses down to third world levels; that's not going to happen. So they stick it to the people working for them. Economics 101. Is anyone forcing you to buy a foreign made iPhone or computer? Not saying I like it, but the hard reality is that people aren't going to pay $1500 for a US made iPhone, although I do wish we had much more manufacturing here. Let's take this a step further and assume they "stick it to the people working for them". Guess what? These people are the ones being hit up for ever rising taxes so YOU can retire 20-30 YEARS before they can. Are you surprised they are pissed? Is isn't jealousy. That's too simplistic. They can't give you what they do not have themselves. Whether you like it or not, you are tied to the global economy. You can't isolate yourself in a cocooned bubble and hold the outside world at bay. Not every union is on the size of a UAW that gets involved in politics, but I can see why they do: they act on behalf of their membership to advocate for laws and policies that benefit the membership And that, in short, is what brought the US auto industry to its knees. Notice how BMW, Toyota, Honda plants in the US don't have the UAW? States and localities that declare pension holidays seem to be poorly run in general, and it's not merely because they're skipping out on paying their portion of the pension costs. Largely democrat led like NJ, Detroit, Chicago and various cities in CA, but there are exceptions. The problem is simple: More was promised than could ever be delivered without crushing taxes or huge cuts in services. Its a numbers thing, which I find may in the public sector cannot or do not grasp. They wish to be immune from the world and its budgetary reality, instead choosing to blame evil corporations who, oops, also are the big job creators and issue the stocks public pensions cannot live without. States that do better fund, like NY, do so at a very high cost to taxpayers, which is.........why so many you included want OUT. Pretty ironic, huh? See where I'm going on this? In the private sector a union represents its interests. Push too hard and the golden goose is cooked. In the public sector, however, normal economic reality is suspended and everyone gets a big pension for participation! Until there isn't any more money and it collapses. |
|
Quoted:
You're still mixing together two VERY different entities- Public and private unions. Remember, the government does not offer a product or service the public is free to reject. Refuse and they take your home. Or put you in jail. Now THERE'S a captive market ripe for monopoly! Did you even read the link I shared? See the part where public unions damned near brought down a tax revolt? We are seeing the same thing over and over. Significantly, you do not even attempt to comment on the indisputable and irrevocably intertwined connections between democrats and public unions. EVERY state with strong public unions is freedom free, high tax and far left. Is your pension worth more than my freedom? View Quote I don't think it matters that the union members are public or private. Why SHOULD it matter? Employees have the right to create a join a union; that doesn't rely on the employees being public or private. Quite frankly when I see that argument being used its by anti-unionists who know that the public sector is the biggest remaining unionized labor force and the anti-unionists want to bring it down. Nor do I deny that the bigger unions have ties to the Democratic Party. That is the status quo because the Democrats are seen as being more receptive to labor issues. Maybe if Republicans had a more positive image in the eyes of union members they'd see more support for GOP candidates... Some companies inevitably fail, and I am sure that in your narrative its always because of those evil unions. My pension has nothing to do with my union. My union holds no stocks, bonds, etc Try another argument. I get it that much of the American public only looks for the cheapest goods. Driving the US labor market down to third world compensation levels is not the answer. Where you are "going with this" is that you are anti-union, and you'll spin any excuse you and folks like you can think of to portray unions and their members in the worst possible light. |
|
|
Quoted:
I don't think it matters that the union members are public or private. Why SHOULD it matter? Employees have the right to create a join a union; that doesn't rely on the employees being public or private. Quite frankly when I see that argument being used its by anti-unionists who know that the public sector is the biggest remaining unionized labor force and the anti-unionists want to bring it down. Nor do I deny that the bigger unions have ties to the Democratic Party. That is the status quo because the Democrats are seen as being more receptive to labor issues. Maybe if Republicans had a more positive image in the eyes of union members they'd see more support for GOP candidates... Some companies inevitably fail, and I am sure that in your narrative its always because of those evil unions. My pension has nothing to do with my union. My union holds no stocks, bonds, etc Try another argument. I get it that much of the American public only looks for the cheapest goods. Driving the US labor market down to third world compensation levels is not the answer. Where you are "going with this" is that you are anti-union, and you'll spin any excuse you and folks like you can think of to portray unions and their members in the worst possible light. View Quote I will address in order: "I don't think it matters that the union members are public or private. Why SHOULD it matter?" Seriously? No, really, seriously? There is a HUGE difference between public and private unions. I'm fine with private unions, but see no place for them in government as the end result is always the same: More government, less freedom, higher taxes and crowding out of services. I will not bother providing links but encourage you to remember that you offer NO SERVICE OR PRODUCT the public is free to refuse. In other words, you have a monopoly. A few main arguments against this can be summed up as: 1) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Is Anti-Democratic 2) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Constitutes an Improper Delegation of Power 3) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Employs Political Rather than Economic Leverage 4) Because of Public Sector Unions’ Disproportionate Electoral Impact, Collective Bargaining Occurs at Less than Arms’ Length To quote: "Collective bargaining in the public sector is fundamentally different than in the private sector. Put most simply, the government is not simply another market actor, because the government lacks the same economic incentives as private industry. Perhaps more importantly, the government is uniquely entrusted with the political power of the people to act for the benefit of the entire public. To provide to a special interest group unique tools and procedures to use as leverage to wrest that power for itself is anti-democratic and tyrannical. Finally, the public sector collective bargaining, unlike in the private sector, permits a union political leverage over the employer, making negotiations less than arms’ length. For all these reasons, it cannot plausibly be maintained that there is no meaningful distinction between the ways public sector unions wield collective bargaining rights and the ways private sector unions do." Some companies inevitably fail, and I am sure that in your narrative its always because of those evil unions. Not at all. Stupid management can also be an issue. Often is. My pension has nothing to do with my union. My union holds no stocks, bonds, etc Try another argument. Um....yes it very much does. Ya gotta get back to school for some learnin'! NYS has the nations 3rd largest pension fund invested in......c'mon now, you know the answer......YES! It's stocks and Bonds!! Woo-hoo! See here for the NYS Common Retirement Fund, for one example: https://www.osc.state.ny.us/pension/ I get it that much of the American public only looks for the cheapest goods. Driving the US labor market down to third world compensation levels is not the answer. On this I do not much disagree. We cannot compete solely on the cost of labor. But, your pay and pensions inexorably comes from the public. So, you should have more and better than they do and make them pay for it....why? Where you are "going with this" is that you are anti-union, and you'll spin any excuse you and folks like you can think of to portray unions and their members in the worst possible light Not even close. I'm not anti union. Unions served an important part in reigning in the excesses in the past. Still do, but where we part ways is public vs. private . Like I said, not even close. Or, to put it better: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0zItjU-x4lU |
|
Quoted:
I will address in order: Seriously? No, really, seriously? There is a HUGE difference between public and private unions. I'm fine with private unions, but see no place for them in government as the end result is always the same: More government, less freedom, higher taxes and crowding out of services. View Quote View All Quotes View All Quotes Quoted:
I will address in order: Seriously? No, really, seriously? There is a HUGE difference between public and private unions. I'm fine with private unions, but see no place for them in government as the end result is always the same: More government, less freedom, higher taxes and crowding out of services. Sorry, but I think that you're playing Chicken Little with these sorts of claims I will not bother providing links but encourage you to remember that you offer NO SERVICE OR PRODUCT the public is free to refuse. In other words, you have a monopoly. We perform essential services. Law enforcement, fire, etc. You might argue that some services aren't as essential as others, but they're still basic services of a civilized society A few main arguments against this can be summed up as:
1) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Is Anti-Democratic 2) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Constitutes an Improper Delegation of Power 3) Collective Bargaining in the Public Sector Employs Political Rather than Economic Leverage 4) Because of Public Sector Unions’ Disproportionate Electoral Impact, Collective Bargaining Occurs at Less than Arms’ Length Once again, more Chicken Little talk My pension has nothing to do with my union. My union holds no stocks, bonds, etc Try another argument. Um....yes it very much does. Ya gotta get back to school for some learnin'! NYS has the nations 3rd largest pension fund invested in......c'mon now, you know the answer......YES! It's stocks and Bonds!! Woo-hoo! You're mistaking the pension fund for my union. My union has nothing to do with the pension fund. The pension fund is run by the state and municipalities choose to participate in one plan or another offered under the general umbrella of pension options. But...as I said, that has nothing to do with the union. |
|
Quoted:
Sorry, but I think that you're playing Chicken Little with these sorts of claims We perform essential services. Law enforcement, fire, etc. You might argue that some services aren't as essential as others, but they're still basic services of a civilized society Once again, more Chicken Little talk You're mistaking the pension fund for my union. My union has nothing to do with the pension fund. The pension fund is run by the state and municipalities choose to participate in one plan or another offered under the general umbrella of pension options. But...as I said, that has nothing to do with the union. View Quote Chicken Little? Really? Allow me to illuminate. Shall we start with Detroit? How about Chicago? Stockton? How about parts of Allentown, PA. I'll give you this- NY's pensions are among the best funded--in no small part due to confiscatory taxes, a harshly anti business climate and Democrat led attacks on personal freedom. Pretty steep price for the rest of NY residents to pay--and also the reasons why you and most of the posters on this board want OUT. But, as long as you get yours everything is fine, right? As for the essential services, I'll concede some of the are indeed so. They need not be so insanely expensive. And that is what will eventually change not due to my opinion, but fiscal reality. 6 figure cops is out and out ridiculous as is "retiring" in ones 40s. As the public continues to wise up and see public unions for what they are you'll see more and more erosion of their power, all to our collective betterment. I'll share but a few links. There are many more, but you get the idea. I doubt you'll bother to read them, but perhaps others might. Don't worry, since NYS is the tax capital of the US you personally will likely be OK, but many, many other public pensions will not. A good death spiral could return sanity to the system and force realignment to more reasonable levels. Pension promises exceed ability to pay: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/business/dealbook/study-finds-public-pension-promises-exceed-ability-to-pay.html?_r=0 Chicago considers bankruptcy: http://www.forbes.com/sites/legalnewsline/2016/04/19/in-illinois-some-push-bankruptcy-as-solution-to-troubled-public-budgets/#7b6d1dec122e Outrageous public pensions could bankrupt some states: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/2015/03/30/Outrageous-Public-Pensions-Could-Bankrupt-These-States Uh Oh...Dallas cops see bankruptcy coming and bail! http://reason.com/blog/2016/09/19/dallas-cops-get-wise-to-impending-public Could California share Dallas' fate with pensions? http://californiapolicycenter.org/dallas-pension-system-crisis-could-it-be-repeated-in-california/ Lowering pension return expectations to realistic levels could steamroll budgets: http://pensionpulse.blogspot.ca/2016/12/calpers-warning-to-us-public-pensions.html Could Dallas be a harbinger of public pension spiral? http://www.elliottwave.com/US-Markets/US-Public-Pensions-In-a-Downward-Spiral |
|
Quoted:
Chicken Little? Really? Allow me to illuminate. Shall we start with Detroit? How about Chicago? Stockton? How about parts of Allentown, PA. I'll give you this- NY's pensions are among the best funded--in no small part due to confiscatory taxes, a harshly anti business climate and Democrat led attacks on personal freedom. Pretty steep price for the rest of NY residents to pay--and also the reasons why you and most of the posters on this board want OUT. But, as long as you get yours everything is fine, right? As for the essential services, I'll concede some of the are indeed so. They need not be so insanely expensive. And that is what will eventually change not due to my opinion, but fiscal reality. 6 figure cops is out and out ridiculous as is "retiring" in ones 40s. As the public continues to wise up and see public unions for what they are you'll see more and more erosion of their power, all to our collective betterment. View Quote Yes, Chicken Little. You name a bunch of poorly run cities that have many issues, and I bet if you go deep into their budgets you'll find that they gave themselves pension holidays. NYs pension system ran into trouble mainly because it relied too heavily on the stock market to give continuing returns that dried up and couldn't sustain the projected revenues. Six figure police salaries exist because that's the prevailing wage to live in those areas. retiring in their 40s exists because 20 years of lugging a gunbelt around and rolling with the criminal element wears officers down. The guys who hang around longer than that either moved into divisions within the general career field that don't require that or they work in Podunk..but Podunk guys aren't making six figures either. I'm eventually moving because of the SAFE Act, pure and simple. I could manage to eek out a living here post-retirement, but I have no interest in having to put up with SAFE once I retire. |
|
Quoted:
Yes, Chicken Little. You name a bunch of poorly run cities that have many issues, and I bet if you go deep into their budgets you'll find that they gave themselves pension holidays. NYs pension system ran into trouble mainly because it relied too heavily on the stock market to give continuing returns that dried up and couldn't sustain the projected revenues. Six figure police salaries exist because that's the prevailing wage to live in those areas. retiring in their 40s exists because 20 years of lugging a gunbelt around and rolling with the criminal element wears officers down. The guys who hang around longer than that either moved into divisions within the general career field that don't require that or they work in Podunk..but Podunk guys aren't making six figures either. I'm eventually moving because of the SAFE Act, pure and simple. I could manage to eek out a living here post-retirement, but I have no interest in having to put up with SAFE once I retire. View Quote Well, perhaps we may age to disagree, but I encourage you to watch and see what eventually will happen. It already is. You're absolutely right when you say many of these places are poorly run. I argue excessive union giveaways and scams like "arbitration" are core elements of a poorly run entity. Surely not the sole factors, but prominent ones nonetheless. As for NYS, take personal comfort that despite New Yrkistan's innumerable flaws, pension funding isn't one of them. Well, except for the part where they stupidly relied on an assumed 8% rate of return. The ONLY way such could ever be even theoretically possible is via.......the stock market. No other investment vehicle has matched its long term potential. The pension plan HAD to rely on the stock market. Look at CALPERS- they gave all sorts of benefits and retros assuming the go-go 90s were going to last forever! Then, as history always proves, it doesn't. Which is when we started to see hell's foundations quiver. Seriously- watch these issues on a national level. I'd wager we haven't seen but the tip of the iceberg. Just in case you think this can't happen closer to your home, look here: http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cop-out-4198.html |
|
Quoted:
Well, perhaps we may age to disagree, but I encourage you to watch and see what eventually will happen. It already is. You're absolutely right when you say many of these places are poorly run. I argue excessive union giveaways and scams like "arbitration" are core elements of a poorly run entity. Surely not the sole factors, but prominent ones nonetheless. View Quote Binding arbitration is a GOOD thing for all parties involved. Previously if all parties at the negotiations table were at an impasse, there were no options to advance the process. The public sector can't strike, which is what the option for private employees would be at such an impasse You wind up with situations like ours where we went almost 15 YEARS without a contract. Why? Because all the other side of the table has to do is say nope, we don't agree, and that's the end of the negotiating process. Everyone sits there and nothing happens to progress the negotiations The arbitrator is a neutral third party that come in and break the logjam and settle the negotiations. At the beginning of the 15 years we didn't have binding arbitration We do now. Fifteen years ago we had a CLEO who was an ethical train wreck for a lot of reasons and it took us 12 years to get rid of him because the political machinery didn't care what he did because he was one of "them". And he literally WAS "one of them". He was on the county board, in charge of the committee that funded us. He intentionally under-funded his predecessor to create a campaign issue, then ran and defeated him on that issue. The fact that his predecessor was the last Republican hold-out in an otherwise Democrat-heavy county government was another issue..... And then his cronies opened the funding floodgates so their "guy" could say in subsequent re-election campaigns that he kept the agency within an expanded budget that should have been the one his predecessor had available. They even wanted to make his position appointed rather than elected so there was no option to get rid of him. The voters thankfully voted that one down, but the politicians brought the idea back up this year ten years later under the guise of "charter review", which they're able to do every ten years. Out of over 100 charters that run the county, that's the only one they chose to "review', because they STILL want to make the elected position an appointed one. You see, you see the employee and their union as the problem. I've SEEN what an out of control administrator tries to do if they have no one to oppose them. Guys like you say that unions and some of these processes have out-lived their usefulness. I politely disagree. Because I've seen what the alternatives are. The processes that are in place are there for a good reason. |
|
Quoted:
Binding arbitration is a GOOD thing for all parties involved. Previously if all parties at the negotiations table were at an impasse, there were no options to advance the process. The public sector can't strike, which is what the option for private employees would be at such an impasse You wind up with situations like ours where we went almost 15 YEARS without a contract. Why? Because all the other side of the table has to do is say nope, we don't agree, and that's the end of the negotiating process. Everyone sits there and nothing happens to progress the negotiations The arbitrator is a neutral third party that come in and break the logjam and settle the negotiations. At the beginning of the 15 years we didn't have binding arbitration We do now. You see, you see the employee and their union as the problem. I've SEEN what an out of control administrator tries to do if they have no one to oppose them. Guys like you say that unions and some of these processes have out-lived their usefulness. I politely disagree. Because I've seen what the alternatives are. The processes that are in place are there for a good reason. View Quote You say: "Binding arbitration is a GOOD thing for all parties involved" I believe it the exact opposite and a direct cause of spiraling salaries, pension costs and more.And, I do NOT see unions on the whole as outliving their usefulness. Just the opposite. My concerns lie solely with PUBLIC sector unions, allowed by JFK solely to boost Democratic power. This is precisely why states with the strongest public unions are deep blue and places to flee. It really stuns me how you keep ignoring this hard and irrefutable reality. The more government employees are unionized, the more Dems have power, which brought NY the safe act, nation's highest taxes and your Gov. Cuomo's claim that NY leads in being "progressive". Unions like yours are in no small part responsible for the rise of Dem power and loss of freedom. In short, they directly give aid and comfort to the enemy. To quote a source some sources on why arb is bad: http://www.empirecenter.org/publications/taylor-made-the-cost-and-consequences-of-new-yorks-public-sector-labor-laws/ Compulsory “interest arbitration” for police and firefighters, which has tended to drive up salaries for uniformed services while hindering creative approaches to improving efficiency and reducing costs. The primary issue in binding arbitration should be a more rigorous standard of “ability to pay” on the part of the affected community, and the option of “last-best-offer” arbitration should be introduced. e.In some states, public-sector unions enjoy another privilege in the form of compulsory binding arbitration, which is intended to resolve public-sector labor disputes without disruption of public services—yet its results often hit the public purse even worse than strikes. For the unions, it is a “can’t lose” proposition, because an arbitrator will never award a settlement that is anything less than management’s final offer, so the union is guaranteed to obtain at least some of its demands and will never come out worse than the status quo ante https://cei.org/blog/binding-arbitrations-threat-state-and-local-governments One reason Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker's labor reforms are considered far-reaching -- by both supporters and detractors -- is the fact that they were structural. Rather than trim around the edges -- trim some salaries here, reduce the growth of some benefits there -- Walker's reforms went to the root of the problem by curbing the mechanism used by government employee unions to gain ever more generous benefits for their members: collective bargaining. Binding arbitration is another favorite structural tool of government unions that state and local governments need to address. Originally conceived as a way to avoid strikes by public safety personnel. The Manhattan Institute's Steven Malanga explains: Arbitration for government workers originally arose as a byproduct of states' bans on public employee strikes. If workers couldn't go out on the picket line, legislators reasoned, they should be given some system of independent mediation in contract disputes. But as public employee unions gained power, they helped shape these systems to their advantage. In some states, like New York, laws ban arbitrators from considering a local government's fiscal limitations when ruling on new contracts. In other states, arbitrators calculating an award for workers in one city can base the amount on the pattern of pay increases in nearby cities, even if those cities are much wealthier and can afford to pay more. Government unions have learned to claim that negotiations with local officials are at an impasse, thus moving the process into arbitration, where they can expect a better deal. A study by the Manhattan Institute's Empire Center for New York State Policy has found that, for New York government workers in jobs covered by arbitration, pay increased over a 10-year period by 59 percent -- compared with a one-third gain for other government workers. Thus, for many states, counties, and cities, the upward ratcheting mechanism that keeps driving government worker compensation constantly upward is embedded in law. As my co-authors Don Bellante, David Denholm, and I explain at length in our Cato Institute study, "Vallejo Con Dios: Why Public Sector Unionism Is a Bad Deal for Taxpayers and Representative Government": In some states, public-sector unions enjoy another privilege in the form of compulsory binding arbitration, which is intended to resolve public-sector labor disputes without disruption of public services—yet its results often hit the public purse even worse than strikes. For the unions, it is a “can’t lose” proposition, because an arbitrator will never award a settlement that is anything less than management’s final offer, so the union is guaranteed to obtain at least some of its demands and will never come out worse than the status quo ante. There is one check on union demands in arbitration—a union’s final offer must be acceptable to the arbitrator for it to be incorporated into a new contract, but that relies on the discretion of the arbitrator, whose incentive to hold down costs is unlikely to be very strong due to his or her lack of a vested interest in the labor dispute’s outcome. The city of San Luis Obispo, California, shows how bad things can get under binding arbitration. In June 2008, an arbitrator awarded hefty salary increases to unionized police officers in San Luis Obispo. Police officers received immediate raises of 22.28 percent, while dispatchers and technicians got raises of 27.82 percent. For the average police officer’s salary, this represents an increase from $71,000 to $93,000 a year,with salaries including overtime expected to top $100,000, according to city officials. City administrative officer Ken Hampian said the increases cost the city $1.8 million above what it planned to pay. While this may be an egregious case, the mere possibility of such a scenario should make state and local governments wary of binding arbitration. |
|
Then there is no point in continuing this discussion. Unions like yours are in no small part responsible for the rise of Dem power and loss of freedom. In short, they directly give aid and comfort to the enemy. LOL, no, it does not. There's no way a union of fifty-odd people has the power that you describe. But as I already pointed out in an earlier post, if Dems tend to be the favored party by unions, perhaps its because the Dems focus on the workers and their issues more than the GOP. Maybe if the GOP dropped its image of being anti-labor, this division wouldn't occur Compulsory “interest arbitration” for police and firefighters, which has tended to drive up salaries for uniformed services while hindering creative approaches to improving efficiency and reducing costs. It was our UNION that found our county a million bucks in savings in health costs. It has been our UNION that ahs advanced suggestions for efficiencies that our county refused to act on by trying to make our suggestions a negotiating chip that if we wanted them enacted we should give up something else in return, as if our suggestions for improved operations only benefited the union membership. But as public employee unions gained power, they helped shape these systems to their advantage. In some states, like New York, laws ban arbitrators from considering a local government's fiscal limitations when ruling on new contracts For years our county would come to the negotiating table with their pockets pulled out, crying poverty. We had to fund an economic study of the county that shot holes in their claims. Keep trying but its clear that your arguments against unions and arbitration don't have much in the way of substance |
|
Quoted:
Then there is no point in continuing this discussion. LOL, no, it does not. There's no way a union of fifty-odd people has the power that you describe. But as I already pointed out in an earlier post, if Dems tend to be the favored party by unions, perhaps its because the Dems focus on the workers and their issues more than the GOP. Maybe if the GOP dropped its image of being anti-labor, this division wouldn't occur It was our UNION that found our county a million bucks in savings in health costs. It has been our UNION that ahs advanced suggestions for efficiencies that our county refused to act on by trying to make our suggestions a negotiating chip that if we wanted them enacted we should give up something else in return, as if our suggestions for improved operations only benefited the union membership. For years our county would come to the negotiating table with their pockets pulled out, crying poverty. We had to fund an economic study of the county that shot holes in their claims. Keep trying but its clear that your arguments against unions and arbitration don't have much in the way of substance View Quote All the proof I need is the outflow of residents in no small part due to taxes--with a direct correlation to union membership. The numbers do not lie and your union's feeble attempts to hide the truth do not work so well anymore. Now, if you want to skip to the bottom I best you can guess what state is the most unionized AND, worse still, most infected with public unions. As I've said many times, I have no issue with private sector unions. They compete in the real world. You don't. That's all the difference in the world. Your state New York: #1 in taxes: http://www.marketwatch.com/story/10-states-with-the-highest-taxes-2016-01-22 Last in freedom: https://www.freedominthe50states.org/ 49th Lowest in business friendly: http://taxfoundation.org/article/2017-state-business-tax-climate-index Highest in per pupil spending: http://www.governing.com/topics/education/gov-education-funding-states.html About worst in health care costs: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/gobankingrates/10-best-and-worst-states_b_9030422.html STATE WITH HIGHEST PUBLIC UNIONS......drum roll please!!! http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/04/11/the-strongest-and-weakest-unions/4/ http://watchdog.org/202460/public-unions-state/ http://time.com/135975/unions/ The best parts are high lighted. Duck and deny all you want, but states with the strongest public unions are almost always lowest in freedom, gun rights and individual liberty. Democrats and public unions. Inseparable and will do anything to separate you from your money and freedom. 1. New York > Pct. of workers in unions: 24.7% > Union workers: 2,036,802 (2nd highest) > 10-yr. change in union membership: -2.5% (25th highest) > Unemployment rate: 4.8% (22nd highest) New York is home to more than 2 million union members, comprising nearly 25% of the state’s workforce. The vast majority of public sector workers — nearly 69% — are union members, the highest public sector union participation rate of any state in the county. As is universally the case, New York’s private sector is much larger than the public sector. As a result, even though only 15.9% of private sector workers in the state belong to an organized labor group, they comprise more than half of the state’s unionized workforce. In the most recent state budget, labor unions won big over some business interests by including a measure to increase minimum wage considerably over the coming years. GAME SET MATCH |
|
|
|
Quoted:
Anti union? Nope. Private sector unions are fine. What I am is anti being screwed and seeing the unholy alliance between Democrats and public sector unions destroy freedom and raise taxes through the roof. View Quote And like I said, you're making that distinction because you know that public sector unions are still a sizeable percentage of all unions and that by banning public sector unions you'd essentially be killing off unions, which is ultimately what I think you want Plus, you're making the assumption that all unions are the same. Stop making that assumption. The core purpose of a union is to represent the membership in bargaining and disciplinary issues. Unions are not "screwing you over" while they engage in those activities |
|
From the land of "Fruits and Nuts" it seems that CalPERS has decided, against the advice of its staff, to fully divest itself of all tobacco related stocks.
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-calpers-tobacco-20161219-story.html It was reported on CBS this morning that their earlier partial divestiture of tobacco stocks 16 years ago cost the fund $3 billion that they could have realized had they held the stocks. This is yet another reason the public pensions are in trouble. Rather than acting in a fiduciary responsible manner, the trustees make stupid investment decisions and then stick the taxpayers with the bill for the difference. From my own personal experience, I worked for a subsidiary of a tobacco company for 8 years in the 1990's and heavily invested in their stock (more than was considered prudent by the experts). For that reason, even though I am divested since 2014 (I still have non-retirement tobacco investments), I have enough 401K money in my retirement fund to meet my retirement goals (according to my financial adviser maybe too much as I may wind up in a higher tax bracket due to RMD requirements). Meanwhile the public pensions avoid socially unpopular, but lucrative, investments and stick us with the bill. |
|
Quoted:
And like I said, you're making that distinction because you know that public sector unions are still a sizeable percentage of all unions and that by banning public sector unions you'd essentially be killing off unions, which is ultimately what I think you want Plus, you're making the assumption that all unions are the same. Stop making that assumption. The core purpose of a union is to represent the membership in bargaining and disciplinary issues. Unions are not "screwing you over" while they engage in those activities View Quote Actually, I have no desire to kill off private sector unions and believer they should stay. They serve a purpose and are subject to market and economic reality. I readily admit to discomfort with public unions as they are significantly different. one cannot seriously argue there are no appreciable differences between those offering a product/service the consumer may reject and "take it whether you want it or not and if you do not pay your taxes we will take your home or put you in jail". Other than accuse me of hating all unions you have yet to factually prove me wrong. Let me give you a quote and see if you can guess who said: “It is impossible to bargain collectively with the government.” That wasn’t Newt Gingrich, or Ron Paul, or Ronald Reagan talking. That was George Meany -- the former president of the A.F.L.-C.I.O -- in 1955. Government unions are unremarkable today, but the labor movement once thought the idea absurd. The founders of the labor movement viewed unions as a vehicle to get workers more of the profits they help create. Government workers, however, don’t generate profits. They merely negotiate for more tax money. When government unions strike, they strike against taxpayers. F.D.R. considered this “unthinkable and intolerable.” Government collective bargaining means voters do not have the final say on public policy. Instead their elected representatives must negotiate spending and policy decisions with unions. That is not exactly democratic – a fact that unions once recognized. The difference between public and private: If private sector unions negotiate deals that make their respective industries more expensive to operate, and thus their products more expensive, consumers have the right to buy less, or to go elsewhere to get what they want. Businesses can send fewer employees to Las Vegas conferences. Families can pinch their food budgets if labor costs at grocery stores make prices more expensive, or replace their cars less often if union benefits add too much to the price of an automobile. If too many people opt out, or buy too little, the company in question goes out of business. And unless the government offers a bailout, that’s the end of the story. When dealing with the private sector, unions generally have some incentive not to overreach to the point where their employer goes out of business. The story’s not the same in the public sector. When government employees negotiate added salary and benefits, those who are not directly employed by the government—which is to say, the vast majority of taxpayers—can’t really opt out. So one of three things has to happen: 1) Taxes are raised to pay for the added compensation costs. 2) Services are cut in order to pay for the additional compensation. 3) The additional compensation isn’t ever paid—a situation that usually comes with, at minimum, some sort of minor political drama, if not a serious showdown. This is why the power of public sector unions is such a big deal: When they negotiate better benefits, the majority of taxpayers usually end up forced to bear the cost, somehow, whether they want to or not. With private sector unions, that’s not necessarily the case. The crucial difference between public and private employee unions is this: A private employee union bargains with its employer to determine its share of the profits that it helps to create. Public employee unions bargain against the taxpayer — and for a potentially boundless sum of money that is not limited by profit. Press reports generally characterize public employee unions as bargaining against the government, but that implies that the government is the source of the money that the public employee unions are after. The actual source, of course, is the citizenry. Lastly, one cannot forget the crushing effect of overwhelming union support for far left democrats. EVERY state with low freedom and high taxes (NJ, CT, NY, MA, CT, etc) are known for the highest number of public union membership. As both FDR and |
|
You keep rehashing the same talking points over and over no matter what I say.
Public sector employees have the same right to collectively negotiate and address labor issues that private sector workers do. I get it that you don't agree with that, and luckily you aren't in charge in order to impose your view of things |
|
Quoted:
You keep rehashing the same talking points over and over no matter what I say. Public sector employees have the same right to collectively negotiate and address labor issues that private sector workers do. I get it that you don't agree with that, and luckily you aren't in charge in order to impose your view of things View Quote My arguments are based on facts, historical precedent and law, not emotion. States with less oppressive public unions are seeing population gains, while those with strong PUBLIC unions like NYS are seeing people leave and dramatic drops in personal freedom including the safe act and tax hikes. I find it odd that you do not see the irony in being so desirous of leaving a state due to a political climate people with your beliefs significantly caused. |
|
Quoted:
My arguments are based on facts, historical precedent and law, not emotion. States with less oppressive public unions are seeing population gains, while those with strong PUBLIC unions like NYS are seeing people leave and dramatic drops in personal freedom including the safe act and tax hikes. I find it odd that you do not see the irony in being so desirous of leaving a state due to a political climate people with your beliefs significantly caused. View Quote Your arguments are based on a dislike of public unions which I believe IS driven by emotion, not facts. You can spin the facts any way you want to achieve your desired outcome, and you're quick to blame any issues my state has on unions. You're too quick to paint all unions as being the same, for starters. it's like the anti-gunners who paint the NRA to be some fire-breathing child-killing malicious entity doing the bidding of gun companies for pure profit. My wishing to leave NY has nothing to do with its various unions, and unions didn't cause the SAFE act or any of the other political issues NY has. Like I said, we're just going to have to disagree on the utility of public unions. The lack of public sector unions in some states as far as I am concerned is a DETRIMENT to those public sector employees. |
|
Quoted:
STATE WITH HIGHEST PUBLIC UNIONS......drum roll please!!! http://247wallst.com/special-report/2016/04/11/the-strongest-and-weakest-unions/4/ http://watchdog.org/202460/public-unions-state/ http://time.com/135975/unions/ The best parts are high lighted. Duck and deny all you want, but states with the strongest public unions are almost always lowest in freedom, gun rights and individual liberty. Democrats and public unions. Inseparable and will do anything to separate you from your money and freedom. 1. New York > Pct. of workers in unions: 24.7% > Union workers: 2,036,802 (2nd highest) > 10-yr. change in union membership: -2.5% (25th highest) > Unemployment rate: 4.8% (22nd highest) New York is home to more than 2 million union members, comprising nearly 25% of the state’s workforce. The vast majority of public sector workers — nearly 69% — are union members, the highest public sector union participation rate of any state in the county. As is universally the case, New York’s private sector is much larger than the public sector. As a result, even though only 15.9% of private sector workers in the state belong to an organized labor group, they comprise more than half of the state’s unionized workforce. In the most recent state budget, labor unions won big over some business interests by including a measure to increase minimum wage considerably over the coming years. GAME SET MATCH View Quote You don't think that's because public employees are basically all that's left in this state? People have been leaving and continue to leave due to private sector jobs essentially disappearing outside of NYC. People are leaving because of the anti business climate that NY has created over the years. People are leaving because of the high taxes created by an entitlement welfare system that's tops in the nation and plenty of other unfunded mandates that come from Albany which by the way are a way bigger problem than public sector pensions. This state is not broke because of public employees. Obviously there are people who have used the system to their benefit and inflated their pension but they are playing by the rules that the state agreed to and now it's time to pay them. If they find that somebody like the Chief that started this whole debate inflated their pension by fraudulent means (claiming OT they didn't work etc) then put the screws to them. I'd also like to see where public employees who are fired for just cause or resign and retire to avoid firing or discipline are stripped of their pension. But we all know that's not going to happen. |
|
I didn't agree to paying them. My vote was over-ruled by others who take from the system.
|
|
Quoted:
You don't think that's because public employees are basically all that's left in this state? People have been leaving and continue to leave due to private sector jobs essentially disappearing outside of NYC. People are leaving because of the anti business climate that NY has created over the years. People are leaving because of the high taxes created by an entitlement welfare system that's tops in the nation and plenty of other unfunded mandates that come from Albany which by the way are a way bigger problem than public sector pensions. This state is not broke because of public employees. Obviously there are people who have used the system to their benefit and inflated their pension but they are playing by the rules that the state agreed to and now it's time to pay them. If they find that somebody like the Chief that started this whole debate inflated their pension by fraudulent means (claiming OT they didn't work etc) then put the screws to them. I'd also like to see where public employees who are fired for just cause or resign and retire to avoid firing or discipline are stripped of their pension. But we all know that's not going to happen. View Quote Are you asking me if I opine that the exodus of private citizens with jobs has resulted in a de facto rise in public union membership or if the high rates of public unions in deep blue states are a cause (not necessarily the sole cause) of decline? I do not think the exodus left the unions in a majority position. In fact, I argue the opposite. Extremely high rates of public union membership is virtually always correlates to high taxes, low freedom and exit of more desirable citizens. Look no further than this board for an example. Deep blue states are broke for many reasons which all interact and are inter-related as I've sought to point out. Common denominators in low freedom, high tax places indisputably include Dem majorities and public unions. Pension costs are by no means the sole cause of people leaving, but they are a sign and symptom. High pension costs arise from too many employees, too generous compensation and excessively high pension benefits. Look at NY's per pupil student cost: Highest in the US. Results in exorbitant school taxes and, as the Dems rise in power mirrors their direct support of the teacher's union, less freedom including more gun control (read: safe act). Public unions and Dems are inexorably intertwined. Too many people earning too much money and too few asked to pay for it. Not a good mathematical formula. Of course welfare, etc costs are an issue. But---who tends to vote that crap in? Yes, Democrats, who rise to power directly correlates to public union support. See how it all ties together? |
|
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.